I'm sorry to hear this! It makes me want to skip out too - but the stage show is my *favorite* musical and I've been looking forward to the movie for literal years (when they [whoever "they" is] decided to do "Cats" first, you could have heard my distressed cries in the next town), so I'll suck it up and go still (and go again if they market a sing-along version), but it'll be under protest!

I'm sorry to hear this! It makes me want to skip out too - but the stage show is my *favorite* musical and I've been looking forward to the movie for literal years (when they [whoever "they" is] decided to do "Cats" first, you could have heard my distressed cries in the next town), so I'll suck it up and go still (and go again if they market a sing-along version), but it'll be under protest!

It's not bad! There are pros (Cynthia Erivo, the big solos/duets, the sets and costumes) and cons (cinematography/lighting, the length, the "talk-singing" by Yeoh and Goldblum) and then there's the sticking point for me, which I suspect won't be/isn't a problem for most, namely, Ariana Grande (who turns out to be a better actress than I would have suspected but who plays Glinda as much more of a mean girl than a spoiled girl. It's a fine line to be sure but I think she falls on the wrong side here. Hard to know if that's her or the director, but, given CRA, I'm going with the director. Also, I'm reserving my judgement of Jonathan Bailey until Part 2 (I liked him, but he's not given much to do here.)

tldr: It's no Cats.

I've never read the book or seen the play, but I'm really confused on how they can only cover half of a play in a movie of nearly same length. I also agree that not mentioning the part 1 in any of the marketing is really shitty.

My wife wanted to see it, so we were trying to figure out if we wanted to make it a date night, but it being only half the story really pushes it into wait for video territory for us.

I've never read the book or seen the play, but I'm really confused on how they can only cover half of a play in a movie of nearly same length

IIRC the musical strips a lot from the book, but it has been a long time since I've encountered either so I can't really say what might come from what.

I do have a see-it-in-a-theater rec though. Just got back from Babygirl. It most certainly is not for everyone, but it was worth seeing it in a theater for the audience reactions alone.

I really enjoyed Wicked, but didn’t realize it was only the first half until it ended. Johnathan Bailey was especially good.

Just got back from Babygirl

I watched this last night, but through a screener link in my den. I'd be curious to see it with an audience, but I'm not sure I want to watch it again. (I think it's a movie that succeeds at what it's trying to do, but "entertain the audience by being fun to watch" was not one of its goals.)

I took the kids to see Wicked today and we all really enjoyed it. I'm glad I knew going in that it was just Part 1, and my expectations were fairly low, but it was a good time. I love a lot of those songs and thought they worked well on-screen. I *think* I liked the choreography, but so many of those scenes, especially the big crowd ones, were shot so frenetically that it was hard to actually see what anyone was doing for more than a second or two. Oh, and Cynthia Erivo is fantastic.

Look! In the sky!

Okay, I admit I was like another fucking Superman movie? I am so tired of endless reboots, but then there was Krypto, and I forgot this was going to have Krypto, so I'll allow it. And wow, there are some interesting choices on the cast list.

And wow, there are some interesting choices on the cast list.

I do love Nicholas Hoult, so I am here for his Lex Luthor. And I feel like Nathan Fillion is going to be the perfect Guy Gardner. I don't know anything about David Corenswet, but he looks like he'll be a good Clark Kent. And I noticed on IMDB that Alan Tudyk is in the cast, but it doesn't list his role, so I'm intrigued.