Wicked: For Good Stumbles but Casts a Spell—Is This Torn Twin Worth Your Time, or Just a Cosmic Fluke?
Added on November 19, 2025 inEntertainment News Cards, Movie News Cards
Popular
Numerology Meets Netflix: Get Your Daily Dose of Cosmic Cinema Suggestions Powered By Our AI Astrologer. Find The Show Or Movie You Were Meant To See!
Ever wonder if Mercury retrograde could explain why sequels sometimes feel like a cosmic letdown? Because, seriously, the follow-up to Wicked—Wicked: For Good—might just be the film equivalent of trying to capture lightning in a bottle twice…and ending up with a lukewarm zap instead. Here we’ve got Elphaba, still the world’s most misunderstood anti-heroine, battling the Wizard’s latest nonsense, while Glinda’s juggling new arrivals like a pro—only, it seems the magical spark that lit up the first movie fizzles a bit in this stretched-out second act. With a heavy dose of stellar performances from Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, but a plot that feels like it’s running in place (kind of like a Leo craving the spotlight but stuck in a Virgo’s routine), this one raises the question: should some stories stay a dazzling one-and-done rather than a trilogy of “meh”? Buckle up as we dive into the enchanting yet uneven follow-up, where some moments soar but others… well, let’s just say they flatten faster than you can say “defying gravity.” LEARN MORE
PLOT: Now demonized by the citizens of Oz, Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) continues her fight to free Oz from the charlatan Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) and Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), while Glinda (Ariana Grande) has to contend with a new arrival to Oz — a little girl named Dorothy.
REVIEW: As a critic, I think it’s important to sometimes acknowledge that certain things just aren’t made for you. As a 44-year-old man, I’m perfectly aware and at peace with the fact that Wicked targets a different audience. Despite all that, I actually had a reasonably good time with the first movie, which I thought was well acted and featured some great musical moments. As such, I was somewhat looking forward to seeing the second movie, Wicked: For Good.
However, I must admit I didn’t have as good a time with the follow-up as I did with the original. It’s not that Wicked: For Good has anything particularly wrong with it compared to the first movie — the acting by the two stars, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, is just as good. Rather, the issue is one that’s common to virtually every movie that’s the second part of a two-part film: it feels like a climax without any build-up. There’s no arc, and at 137 minutes, the movie feels bloated, with little to no sense of real conflict. It feels like a third act that’s been drawn out to its breaking point, and watching this one, it’s clear that Wicked would have been much more effective as one three-hour epic (just like the stage show) as opposed to two deadly long films that add up to more than five hours.
There’s probably a great fan edit to be made of the two movies, but watching part two is undeniably a disappointment, even if hardcore fans will no doubt eat it up. It’s just that this plays more to a niche audience than the first film, which was accessible whether you’re a fan of the stage show or not. It also doesn’t help that so much of the action happens off-screen; in the sequel, Dorothy has already arrived in Oz, and all the big set pieces one associates with The Wizard of Oz are simply talked about by characters, with no big moments left for Elphaba or Glinda.
Of course, it’s not all bad — Erivo’s singing is unbelievable, even if she never gets the opportunity to belt out any tunes on par with “Defying Gravity” from the first movie. More hinges on her chemistry with Jonathan Bailey’s Fiyero, who finds his loyalties torn between the two women who love him. There are some cool moments of body horror that folks who know the play will appreciate, with characters like Ethan Slater’s Boq and Marissa Bode’s Nessarose meeting rather grim fates — especially poor Boq. Ariana Grande’s Glinda also gets some powerhouse moments, and fans will love the long-awaited showdown between the two.
Yet with the characters given less of an evolution, some of the more obvious flaws of director Jon M. Chu’s movies become apparent. The added songs feel like padding, and the flat, digital look of the movie is more of an issue this time, with For Good looking less epic than the first one, which at least had the world of Shiz University to delve into. Nothing you see in Oz can compare to the production design of the first film. Given how much of a money-maker these movies turned out to be, one wishes Universal had ponied up and allowed Chu to shoot the films in a higher-end format — perhaps 35mm, or with IMAX cameras. I suppose the movies were considered a huge gamble, but as they are, they lack a certain spectacle that could have made the flaws inherent to the second half less obvious.
All that said, it should be noted that the preview audience I saw this with didn’t seem to mind any of the issues I mentioned. There was a gang of teenage girls behind me who were singing along with all the musical numbers, and the entire audience applauded the film at the end. Part of me is inclined to give this a 5/10, but the movies obviously work for the audience they’re intended for — even if this critic is a bit of a stick in the mud.
Auto Amazon Links: No products found.
This will close in 0 seconds
This will close in 0 seconds
){kind=link}