Review: Wicked Is a Letdown for Fans of the Books
The movie musical fails to deliver on the more interesting antiauthoritarian themes of its source material.

The Broadway sensation Wicked has finally made it to the big screen, earning mostly positive reviews and the best-ever opening week for a film based on a Broadway musical.
Wicked is not merely based on a musical; the musical's source material is a series of dark fantasy novels by Gregory Maguire, who presents a revisionist version of L. Frank Baum's original Oz books. The most famous Oz-derived property is undoubtedly the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, which introduced audiences to ruby slippers, Toto, and Technicolor.
By comparison, Wicked is unlikely to leave such a lasting legacy, if only because the film and musical—unlike the novels—are a bit too simple, even saccharine. In these adaptations, the titular Wicked Witch Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) is a schoolmate, rival, and eventual best friend to Glinda the Good (Ariana Grande). Both girls are learning to harness magic in a world run by the imperious humbug, the Wonderful Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum). The Wizard wants to use the witches' power to create a surveillance state and oppress Oz's talking animals.
Obvious antiauthoritarian themes are involved, though the new film version does a thin job developing them. Elphaba's dramatic decision to rebuff the Wizard's offer of employment and instead strike out on her own serves as the moving musical climax—the witch defies both gravity and her government. It's a serviceable film, although fans of the Maguire series will miss its more sophisticated storylines. The most interesting Ozian ideas can still be found in the original Baum novels.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"By comparison, Wicked is unlikely to leave such a lasting legacy, if only because the film and musical—unlike the novels—are a bit too simple, even saccharine."
Apparently, the novel is obsessed with flipping the script to justify the Wicked Witch's actions and make her "good" and to present Baum's relatively good character's as evil. Ads well as a general odd, and sour view of heterosexual relationships, prurient interest in young boys. The books, apparently, are not good.
Four "paragraphs". The first is a single sentence. Baum wrote over 40 books and several musicals. Robby churns out a sub-par 6th grade book report.
And, yeah, imagine a whole novel about how Draco Malfoy was really just an insecure little boy and misunderstood protagonist.
Jus5 to be clear, I am talking about Maguire's books.
Apparently?
LOL at having opinions on a book you haven't read.
Dude, is this your first day on the internet?
It was from another reviewer who was otherwise sympathetic to p4ogresive ideology.
I wasn't interested in watching it anyway after the actress's unhinged meltdown over fan art.
The Heaven's Gate-esque press tour was creepy AF... and then the fans started rationalizing/justifying it.
Normie: It's weird that they're affirming everyone's existence and crying a lot.
Fan: They're just under a lot of pressure.
Normie: Yeah... that... doesn't make it seem like they aren't being brainwashed and/or abused.
Actors aren't paid to think. They are paid to convey emotion.
Would you fire an accountant because he had bad taste in movies?
Maybe. If I found out they were a "Cuties" fanatic, I might have to cut them loose.
Are you paid to be retarded or do you do it of your own free will?
Her comments and appearance aside, it was her acting and singing that was the only redeeming thing about this movie. That said, it was still insufferable and I had to turn it off before too long.
The movie is bad because it's a Broadway play. It stinks of elitist pretentiousness from the first moment. The theme Robby found lacking was there, but filtered through a Marxist lens of race, class, and sex.
I'm not their target audience because I'm not a gay leftist elitist. While this doesn't solely apply to this movie, I find it incredibly off-putting the way everything is over-acted, fake, and nonsensical. I want to put a bullet in my brain with every poor transition into another song.
+1 Wicked is how you get an Emilia Perez greenlit.
The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own.
It's Isaiah Berlin's Inner Citadel as ethos.
So is Love Love or not?
Wicked is just the latest in a long line of movies that blur good and evil by trying to "understand" or "get the back story" or "flip the script" regarding the villain. See Megamind and 1,000 other movies.
Most of these are geared for kids. Evil isn't really evil, kids, it's just misunderstood pain. So don't blame the villain; understand him.
Blurring of good and evil. Blurring of male and female. Blurring of art and "modern art" (finding a piece of shit and sticking it to a wall). All aspects of the long march through the institutions.
The movie musical fails to deliver on the more interesting antiauthoritarian themes of its source material.
Huh, I thought it was all about LBGTQI2MAP+ themes. Where'd I get that idea?
"Authoritarianism" is not normalizing such things.
Why does Reason even bother with movie reviews? 4 paragraphs on a months-old film. Same with Gladiator 2. Why bother?