Wicked (Part One): New England’s Favorite Musical

Across the board, “Wicked” is extremely popular with everyone. That leaves us with one answer fictional fake Doctor Connors (AKA Leo DiCaprio) wants to find out: Does Hundred Tomatoes concur?

After over twenty years, the iconic Tony Award winning musical, “Wicked” finally finds itself on the big screen. Directed by John Chu, the story of the witches of Oz stars Emmy, Grammy and Tony winning powerhouse Cynthia Erivo (Harriet, Broadway's The Color Purple) as Elphaba, a young woman, misunderstood because of her unusual green skin, who has yet to discover her true power, and Grammy-winning, multi-platinum recording artist Ariana Grande as Glinda, a popular young woman, gilded by privilege and ambition, who has yet to discover her true heart. The two meet as students at Shiz University in the Land of Oz and forge an unlikely but profound friendship. You likely know the gist of the plot given its pedigree. Maybe you read the book the musical based itself off, or maybe you watched the musical this film adapts. However, a little summary never killed nobody. In today’s day and age, you never know when someone does not know of something out there in society.

Does “Wicked” defy gravity? Or does it drag itself down to Earth with the rest of us? Before we answer that, let’s take a peek at what those rubes over at Rotten Tomatoes think of this musical adaptation:

Critic Score: 89% Certified Fresh

Critic Synopsis: Defying gravity with its magical pairing of Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, Wicked's sheer bravura and charm make for an irresistible invitation to Oz.

Audience Score: 97% Certified Fresh

Audience Synopsis: Fly, do not run, to see Wicked, a bewitching musical experience chanted by a spellbinding cast.

The critics obviously think “Wicked (Part One)” defies gravity, and clearly, people cannot get enough of the land of Oz. However, we still need to answer Dr. Connor’s big question: Does Hundred Tomatoes concur?

Spoiler Alert: In case you missed the memo from the past twenty plus years, I will warn you that I plan on discussing specific scenes from this movie. If you would rather experience those moments for yourself, feel free to scroll down to the bottom to see the “TL;DR” synopsis, along with the official score at the end.

Without further ado, let’s go to the review!

Back in the year 1900 at an exotic place known as Aberdeen, South Dakota, Frank Baum wrote an obscure book called, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” He based it on the stories his father would tell him before bed. Little did he know that it would turn into a Broadway musical just a few years later, followed by fourteen additional Oz books of his own that further explored the lore, followed by various authors who continued the legacy of the land, followed by the classic 1939 film starring Judy Garland, followed by countless spin offs such as “The Wiz” along with a fresh take on the power dynamics of the land in “Wicked” which began originally as a novel in 1995 by Gregory Maguire. After well over a hundred years, the legacy of the land of Oz lives on with this newest rendition in its realm: Director John Chu’s “Wicked (Part One).”

The universe they create in the film pays tribute to this fictional land masterfully. Aesthetically, everything absolutely astounds me. The elaborate set pieces, the loud, colorful costumes unique to each character, the visual effects, the cinematography, and the sound all bring an element of immersion to the table that enthralled as I witnessed everything unfold.

Between the town at the beginning, the Shiz academy, the kingdom of Oz, the enchanted the forest they spend some time in, and probably several more I am missing, every place possesses its own unique vibe to it. They mix it up enough to the point to keep viewers on their toes. Every nook and cranny of these areas seem thoroughly planned out down to every single little detail, to the point where I could watch this multiple times, yet still find brand new novelties that would pique my interest. Without a doubt, the standout comes near the end, as the Wizard of Oz shows them his mock miniature universe with the yellow brick road. It encapsulates the vastness of the universe so vividly.

Not only does every individual present unique styles, but many characters also require multiple costume swaps throughout. They make these changes flawlessly, in ways that add new flairs, but also do not distract from the overarching characters themselves. For example, Glinda (the “guh” is silent), changes outfits more times than I can count, but never in a way that detracts from her overall aura. The same goes for everyone else.  The color palette also features all kinds of dynamics that would make ROY G BIV proud.

A special shoutout also needs to go to the sound crew. Too often, when musicals get adapted for film, the magic of the songs do not come through as well. This is because they need to record all the songs in advance, which can lead to overproduction, followed by an unnatural flow that takes viewers out of the movie altogether. Also, it can make it harder to sell the acting, since the passion needs more manufacturing. In this instance, instead of using pre-recorded studio versions, they decided to have Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo sing live on set. This creates a massive difference in the movie’s ability to pay homage to the musical, while creating a more authentic feeling that does not come across in instances where the singers simply lip sync to a pre-recording. I genuinely feel like I am watching a live musical at times during this film.

The amount of work that went into all the aesthetics deserves all the praise in the world. Clearly, this passion project took a TON of effort to bring to life. I could write for days about the world building in “Wicked (Part One)”

All the musical numbers impress me. Several memorable ones stick out: obviously “Defying Gravity” and the usual suspects from the movie exuberate. However, “The Wizard and I” might be my favorite number in this aside from the final one. In this rendition, the tracking shots from the cinematography add an element of immersion to it that makes the part even more powerful.

Both Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo perform admirably from an acting perspective as Glinda and Elphaba respectively. Their dynamics contrast nicely, which makes the chemistry as they come together more memorable. Whereas Grande really hams up it for the camera in an over-the-top way, Erivo stays grounded, playing the role of “realist” throughout.

Grande shines in her ability to make the character “believably unbelievable”, meaning that while on paper, Glinda comes across as someone impossibly dumb, Grande brings a whimsical spirit to it that by the end cannot help but make her sympathetic to some extent. It takes a little while for her character to grow, but once it does, the payoff is worth the wait. She also showcases some emotional range, especially in the musical numbers. Certain scenes enable her to show some real vulnerability that add layers to her performance.

Erivo on the other hand, shows so much pain in her character simply with her eyes. She brings feelings of misfortunes to life in a big way. I like the “down to earth” consistency she portrays. Musicals can fall prey to everyone overacting, but in this instance, Erivo’s performance helps keep some of that at bay, often serving as a voice of reason as we watch others act so irrationally. Her singing voice suits the role perfectly.  

Development wise, they both grow together as characters. Glinda learns how to be less self-centered, while Elphaba learns to lean on others for help whilst unapologetically standing up for what she believes in. The film also explores a few themes: One pertaining to prejudice, the other power dynamics. For the former, the dynamic developments help us understand not only the passive aggressive nature of bullying today, but also how others can overcome differences to bond with one another. With the latter, it nicely shows the manipulative nature of those in power, along with the mystery behind what drives human behavior. I question whether they need certain scenes to make their point, but the layers of both Glinda and Elphaba paint a beautiful picture on overcoming pre-conceived notions of people. You feel a genuine chemistry between the two by the end.

All raving aside, are there ANY major issues whatsoever with “Wicked (part one)”? Aside from some minor gripes over what appear to be slight overuses of green screens or CGI in the production design, and occasional dialogue that borders on cringeworthy, the answer to this question is, “yes”. In fact, such a glaring one exists that it significantly detracts from my viewing experience.

You’re probably wondering why I keep putting “part one” in parenthesis. Maybe I missed all the main pieces of marketing, or my media literacy skills lack, but it did appear to me that on a surface level, they advertised this as just “Wicked” in basically all the materials I came across. Seriously, watch the trailer, or look at the movie poster at the top of my article, and see if you find a “part one” listed anywhere. If you find it, please let me know, because I never saw it.

Then, all the sudden, they show in fine print “Part One” when the title screen of the film pops up. I could not believe my eyes. I wondered if maybe I needed to see an Optometrist.

When the movie ends on a cliff hanger after the “Defying Gravity” number (which admittedly, is phenomenally done), it makes me feel cheated out of a full conclusion.

With all this said, let’s assume for a second, they did not pull a bait and switch on me, and I just did not properly pay attention to the marketing prior to watching this. My elementary school teachers would certainly find this to be a plausible scenario.

You’re telling me, that they could not condense this musical down into one feature film? The Broadway Musical gets everything across in two hours and forty-five minutes. Many consider it as one of the best musicals of all time. If the musical can get it done in less than three hours, why can’t this movie?  

This “part one” movie runs for two hours and forty minutes. Pretty much double the time of the first half in the actual musical. They say they did this split into parts so they could add more exposition and more layers to the character dynamics. I am all for more character development, but really? They couldn’t cut some things to make this all one film? Even if they must make the runtime over three hours (which I would have happily stayed for)?  C’mon, no way…. YOU EXPECT ME TO BELIEVE THAT?! I can think of at least a few scenes/expositions they could cut to shore up time. It feels like a cop out that abdicates themselves from making tough creative decisions.

Some people like to say, “it is about the journey, not the destination.” For any fans of that motto, I HIGHLY recommend watching “Wicked (part one)”. This takes you on an emotional rollercoaster like none other. To illustrate my point, the crowd in my theater literally applauded at the end. I cannot remember the last time that happened at a movie I watched. Any fans of the Broadway musical will love this adaptation. Just be mentally prepared for the fact that it ends on a cliffhanger.

TL;DR Synopsis: An aesthetic masterclass with excellent character development backed by strong acting that unfortunately incorporates an incomplete plot

HT Score: 75/100 Tomatoes (for the record, if not for the cliffhanger, I would have likely given this a 90/100 at the very least barring any major screwups).

Oscar Watch

As I mentioned, “Wicked: Part One” gives audiences a powerful, unforgettable experience. For that reason, I think it will get nominated for “Best Picture”. However, because it ends on a cliffhanger, I would be completely stunned if it won the award. I don’t think anything labelled as a "Part One” of a movie that ends with “to be continued” could win this award. I would be surprised though if this goes home empty handed, especially on an aesthetic front. Here are the categories I can envision potential nominations:

Best Director: The amount of passion that John Chu put into this is incredible. You can tell that so much needed to be done to make this movie at the level it finds itself at. For the 500^th time in this review, if only he did not choose to end this on a cliffhanger… That decision may be what prevents him from getting a nomination.

Best Actress: Cynthia Erivo electrifies. She will be in tough competition with several others, but a nomination at the very least is well deserving.

Best Supporting Actress: I question whether Ariana Grande as Glinda is in a “supporting” role, but if so, she should get nominated for her whimsical performance that shows deceptive range.

Best Production Design: The world building in this is incredible. I think “Wicked: Part One” could easily win this award. The only way this loses is if members of the Academy like the more grounded look in “Dune: Part Two” that seems slightly less CGI/green screen driven.

Best Costume Design: I cannot stress enough: the costume design in this is immaculate. I would be stunned if they do not win this award. The only dark horse to defeat it at this point would be “Dune: Part Two”

Best Makeup and Hairstyling: Along with the costumes, there are so many eccentric looks from both of these perspectives. It helps add to the unique vibe of Oz.

Best Sound: The way they make the songs flow into the movie so naturally is a work of art. I hope more film adaptations of musicals follow their lead on this creative decision. It feels so authentic.

Best Visual Effects: While CGI comes into effect, they do not go overboard on it and make it seem realistic for the most part. The magic feels immersive in this. It won’t win but could get nominated.

Best Cinematography: Their use of tracking shots and close ups really impress me. The camera works compliments the production design beautifully.

You might be wondering why I do not list “Best Original Score” or “Best Original Song” as potential nominees. Unfortunately for the film, since it is directly derivative of an already successful musical, the Academy will likely want to award those who came up with content specifically for their films, as opposed to already existing content.