“Wicked” has had a long journey to the silver screen since the original Broadway musical premiered at San Francisco’s Curran Theatre in 2003. After spending over 15 years stuck in development limbo, “Wicked” finally took flight at Universal with Marc Platt and Jon M. Chu, pitched as an epic two-part adaptation. Has that gambit paid off?

This second half of the story about an outsider and a conformer transforms into a tale of the power of friendship, understanding and the transformative power of love. What’s actually wicked is that both films operate under very black and white terms: There is no middle ground to explore, only very stark representations of what good and evil are. 

“Wicked: For Good” opens right where last year’s “Wicked” left off: Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) has been exiled from Oz and Glinda (Ariana Grande) is the poster child for the Good Movement in Oz. The film successfully conveys the contrast between these two. Even if you’ve never seen the first film or the musical, you’re surely familiar with the iconic pink and green that the main characters don. This color palette acts as a sort of yin and yang, a balance between two opposing forces, while also serving the greater message of the film: look beyond facades, to see people as they present themselves to you, not how the world sees them. 

“Wicked: For Good” is often confusing. This is both a problem of directorial indifference and both Gregory Maguire and Winnie Holzman’s source materials’ inherent inconsistency. Fans of the Broadway musical are aware of the second act’s reputation for being weaker than the first, mostly for its lack of follow-through on its plot. There was an opportunity for director Chu to improve the back half by making tweaks; tightening up the plot, providing a clearer explanation of these characters’ motives and making drastic cuts to meaningless plot points. However, Chu stays too close to the source material, never taking artistic decisions far enough to bring dedicated fans into uncharted territory. 

This is the heart of the problem with the film: everything is technically perfect, including its beautiful cinematography, music, vocals that soar and luscious costume and set design, yet there is no depth behind any of this gloss. Although it’s a story about going against the grain, the film doesn’t actually practice what it preaches and falls to convention. 

And this choice, while neither bad or good, creates a film that is perplexing and convoluted, yet inspiring and heartwarming. 

A major subplot revolves around the treatment of animals and in the fictional Shiz University, animals work as professors and possess human-level intellect. Throughout the first film, the animals are slowly subjugated to oppression at the hands of The Wizard of Oz (Jeff Goldblum) and are reverted to a traditional animal-like state, mooing and baaing. Oz locks the once intellectual animals in subterranean basements, enslaves them and creates propaganda to convince the people of Oz of their inferiority. This mirrors actual oppression of marginalized peoples and how power can be weaponized against others. With the help of Elphaba and Glinda, the animals get their freedom, and Oz is run out of the city. However, the film doesn’t dig deeper into Oz’s reasons for believing animals to be inferior; it doesn’t really give him any redeeming qualities beyond his evil. This one-dimensional characterization of power doesn’t do justice to the actual issue of animal abuse or its allegorical oppression of real people, nor does it provide audiences much to chew on. 

Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), another antagonist, also receives one-dimensional characterization. She is the mastermind behind propaganda that props up the public images of Glinda the Good and the Wicked Witch. She is so cartoonishly evil, characterized as ruthless, power-hungry and plain mean. We never understand why Madame Morrible behaves the way she does and why she clings to power so desperately. Not even Yeoh’s incredible talent could save this character. 

And of course, “Wicked” is a musical. The music reveals the characters’ emotions to the audience and drives the plot forward. As in the first movie, the musical performances in “Wicked: For Good” are beautiful, but they lack the emotional power necessary to evoke deep emotion. The musical performances in the original “Wicked” musical are iconic; Kristin Chenoweth’s vibrating soprano tinges her performance as Glinda with vulnerability, and Idina Menzel exudes hope as Elphaba. In the films, the music is sanitized, over-produced and the majority of the vocals neatly fall into key with no real intention. The leads, Grande and Erivo, perform beautifully together, but Grande’s performance in both films doesn’t live up to the grandiosity of Glinda on the page or stage. 

One of the only great things about this movie is Erivo, a talented powerhouse who brings her all to the screen. With a voice that soars beyond any natural explanation, Erivo is an actress who brings the depth and nuance necessary to portray Elphaba alongside charm that exudes through the screen. With the subtle lift of an eyebrow or flit of an eye, she successfully conveys what the character of Elphaba feels. Erivo makes the role hers for a second time around.

 For all of its faults, Wicked is still a story of hope, friendship and connection. It’s a heartwarming blockbuster that does what it intended to do: make lots of money and hopefully receive award nominations. But is that really changing anything for the better?

“Wicked: For Good” flies into theatres on Friday, Nov. 21.