This might not be a popular (get it?), but I thought it was meh. My rating is what it is because, honestly, I’m just being a bit too nice.

Chu does an okay job directing, but the excessive backlighting, overexposure, and flares give the film a distinctly unappealing look—like someone smeared Vaseline on the lens. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but considering his last film, In the Heights, looked like an Old Navy commercial, it’s hard to ignore the pattern. He tends to play it safe when it comes to the visual style of his films.

This approach stands in stark contrast to intentional visual experimentation—think Joe Wright’s deliberate use of a nylon stocking over the lens in Atonement or Spielberg’s decision to bleach the negatives of Minority Report for a gritty, washed-out aesthetic. Those choices had clear artistic purpose, but this just feels lazy. It’s no wonder everyone and their mother is calling out how ugly the movie looks; it’s hard not to mention when it’s so glaringly obvious on screen.

Then there’s the pacing, which is bloody awful. While it’s easy to blame the split into two parts, I’d argue that’s not the main issue. The film completely loses its flow about an hour in—right around the "Dancing Through Life" number with the clocks. From there, it feels like it’s running in circles, with scenes dragging on endlessly and no rhythm to speak of. The lack of momentum pulls everything down, and things don’t really pick up until they travel to Oz. Maybe this works better on stage, but here, it feels like it’s all setup with nothing substantial to keep my attention.

The main saving grace of the film is the chemistry between Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo. Both leads were surprisingly strong, each fully owning their roles. Erivo completely owns "Defying Gravity"—so much so, it gave me chills. Grande’s comedic sensibility also shines through; she still has that Cat-like charm from Victorious, injecting much-needed energy into the film and providing a lightness that helps balance its heavier moments, especially considering the film functions as one long allegory for fascism.

With that said, at the end of the day, this is a movie the studio knows will rake in money, and it’s clear these two films are going to be a cash cow for Universal. So really, it doesn’t matter all that much what I think, given I’ve already handed over my money (AKA an AMC A-List reservation).

It’s the body-snatcher of films—and the shit won, because, admittedly, it already got me.

My real takeaway, though, is where Return to Oz fits into all this canon-wise.

I gave this the same rating as Return to Oz, but honestly, my ratings aren’t a bit skewed aren’t they.

Ah well, I’m just blabbering. I’ll wrap it up here.

To be continued...