The first part of the film adaptation of 'Wicked' It lasts more or less the same as the original musical, about two and a half hours (not counting credits or intermission). This ends up being an obvious problem since, in effect, 'Wicked: Part One' it becomes long and heavy; especially for how little it counts… and especially for the simple way in which it tells it. It's hard not to think about musicals like 'Cats'but it is even more complicated not to think of Disney “live action” films as without going any further 'Oz. A fantasy worldalso a prequel to the well-known 'The Wizard of Oz'. “bloated” and overproduced productions that seem to have cost 300 million dollars, although they look as if they had cost less than 100. Productions wrapped in a sumptuous and excessive artifice of extremely hygienic opulence, much closer to a cosplay than to the proper suspension of disbelief or theatrical magic, and it is also evident that they have removed the seal from the furniture and the labels from the clothing just before roll. A catalog show flat that could well have been made by an AI… Maybe I'm sounding too harsh… but it's two long and tiresome hours and a half.
'Wicked: Part One' It's not a bad film, but it is a simplistic one, with an obviously excessive duration and a tone that is too inconsistent to gel into anything in particular. At this point, the remake of 'bad girls' regarding one's own 'bad girls' original: or when less is more, and singing, without more, does not contribute much more either. It's about doing something as simple (and at the same time complicated) as he did 'The Greatest Showman': let the songs structure the film. What the hell, let them be THE MOVIE. After all, we are talking about a musical. AND 'Wicked' It is a musical (even though some “jokers” may not like it). The story, simple and predictable, topical and routine, is the least of it. Not that Oz was a real wizard, right? The problem of 'Wicked: Part One' It is the same as so many other Disney blockbusters like the one mentioned above. 'Oz. A fantasy worldor almost any “live action”: swimming in an abundance that results in an exacerbated pijerio and an excessive concern for the superficial, the banal and the superfluous. In an excess of almost anything but the most foundational: magic. The magic that, without a doubt, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande bring little by little, especially when they sing. The magic of music, and of a musical of unquestionable success whose deployment on stage is, without a doubt, much more restrained and practical than that exhibited in its adaptation to the big screen. An adaptation that also promises (or threatens) to last even twice as long. Maybe I'm sounding too harsh… but it's a long, hard two and a half hours. And there is still a second part, also two and a half hours long? Was it necessary to divide this adaptation into two films? Neither yes… nor no. But for now, 'Wicked: Part One' It is a very simple and simple production whose excess footage dilutes its benefits, resulting in a kind of cross between 'bad girls' and 'Oz. A fantasy world which, rather than adapting a musical, seems like an attempt to emulate Disney. But to that hypertrophied Disney that no longer knows how to spend moderately on movies, not just so that they look like movies, but rather so that they don't seem expensive but vulgar cologne ads for posh progressives. 'Wicked: Part One'As I said, it's not a bad movie… and when it gives free rein to Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, it's enjoyable. But it's two and a half hours of beautiful, empty déjà vu. Two long and tiresome hours and a half that barely develop anything, full of clichés and with 90% of the cast as extras during which it also takes countless tonal lurches without ending up being anything in particular; especially, what it is supposed to be: a musical, undisguised and from head to toe. Thus, we are left with a diluted and irregular, flat and timid work. A film in which hours seem to pass between the musical numbers, not by chance when its shortcomings stop bothering. Quite symptomatic is that when the “to be continued” appears, one runs out of the room, as if it were a break in the play and one takes the opportunity to flee… since at that point, one feels that they have not told the person anything. at the same time that they have already told him everything. Was it necessary to divide this adaptation into two films…?
