The run time for “Wicked: Part 1″ is an impressive 2 hours and 40 minutes. At first glance, one might be taken aback by this duration. However, as we delve deeper, we discover that this is just the first half of the captivating story of Elphaba and Glinda. It's only in recent times that the full title, including “Part 1,” has come to light. It seems the studio executives recognized the potential for audience revolt if viewers expected a complete plot arc and were only given half. There is a precedent for such frustration. Remember when we reached the end of “The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” and realized we had to wait for two more movies and years for a satisfying conclusion? In the theater, I vividly recall yelling in disbelief.

"Experience the Magic of 'Wicked: Part 1' - A Cinematic Half that Transcends Time"

Setting the Stage

Before seeing “Wicked: Part 1,” which opened today, I couldn't help but wonder if the movie producers would face an audience revolt despite the clear indication of “Part 1.” After all, 2 hours and 40 minutes is a significant chunk of time for just one half of a story. When my oldest daughter turned 11, we took in “Wicked” on Broadway. The full runtime was 2 hours and 45 minutes, including a 15-minute intermission. While we both loved the show and were swept away by the magic of live theater, we agreed that a good 20 to 40 minutes could be trimmed without losing the essence. Not all the songs were absolute bops, and some could have been omitted without detracting from the overall experience.Now, as I entered “Wicked: Part 1,” I was skeptical about whether it could earn its length. Having had a similar experience in the play, I expected to get a bit bored. But oh, how wrong I was!

The Visual Spectacle

“Wicked: Part 1″ truly charmed me. Not a single second was dull. Even the so-called “sleeper songs” were visually engaging, and I didn't mind the occasional melancholy melody. The film was in capable hands with John M. Chu, who had previously made “Crazy Rich Asians.” That movie was such a blast that I immediately wanted to watch it again. It's clear that the $145 million budget was well spent. The set, filled with nine million tulips, was incredibly detailed, rich, and inviting. It felt as if I were physically in the land of Oz.Every actor gave their all, and I have to give credit where it's due. Ariana Grande, in particular, has won me over. I now believe she deserves an Oscar. Cynthia Erivo also gave a remarkable performance. The whole cast seemed to shine. Their vocal performances were on par with, if not better than, the Broadway counterparts. I was too absorbed in the fun to notice any differences.

Length and Satisfaction

I could have watched another hour, maybe even two. My 12-year-old daughter loved the film just as much as I did. It made me wonder if the powers that be should have combined the two parts and made it an extra-long film. After all, all the best songs and the good story are in the first half. In fact, after finishing the Junior Mints during the intermission, we were ready for the show to end, but it did drag on a song or two too long.“Wicked” is projected to earn more than $100 million this weekend, highlighting its appeal. But there's a concern that the second half might not live up to expectations. Audiences might be disappointed. However, my expectations for Part 1 were proven wrong, so perhaps Part 2 will surprise us. And if Part 2 is only as enjoyable as it takes to eat a box of Junior Mints, at least Part 1 will stand as a thrilling and satisfying cinematic experience. Yes, I want to watch it again.