MOVIE REVIEW: WICKED: FOR GOOD (2025)

The inferior half of the stage production makes for an inferior second movie. After all the world building and goofy charm of the first half of this overlong story, the second half does its darndest to burn all that down. With precious time remaining on the clock, Wicked: For Good ebbs and flows between overstaying on some scenes and hitting warp speed on others. It may complete the story, but in a disjointed way.

The film is never clear about how much time has passed since Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) escaped from the Emerald City. Now an enemy of the state, she embraces her designation as villain, even though she is fighting the injustice being doled out on the animals of Oz by the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) and Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh). Meanwhile, Glinda (Ariana Grande) is caught in the middle. She is now the official face of the powers that be, though she herself possesses little magical power, and knows that she is on the wrong side but hopes for a turnaround.

Because the central conflict of the overarching story was revealed so late into the first movie, the filmmakers have to push us through a lot of escalation. This makes for some heavy viewing. The transformation and subsequent attitude of the Tin Man is notably jarring (frightening even, for the younger set), especially if you are still hoping for this tale to harmonize with the events of the 1939 film. Elphaba was never going to become a cheery character, and Glinda’s trajectory is one of deepening disappointment and sadness, so there’s no room for a peppy song to break the tension and lighten the mood.

Once again, though Elphaba is supposed to be the star, her trajectory is straightforward. Glinda, on the other hand, continues to be a complicated role. The second half of the story turns her into something of a tragic figure. Caught in the middle, it’s easy to see how the course of events might leave her gutted and jaded, despite the victories along the way. She’s left alone to process a lot of heavy stuff, so was it worth it? Maybe real life is like that sometimes, but it puts a damper on what’s supposed to be escapist fantasy.

Wicked: For Good struggles the most when it tries to integrate the events of The Wizard of Oz. The chronology of it all just doesn’t work. Again, this is most problematic if you are trying to interpret this film as actually being connected to the 1939 film. It blurs that line by being reference-heavy without explicitly trying to stand out on its own as a separate story in an alternate universe. The filmmakers are forced to rush plot lines and get too cute with weaving the two stories together. While some references are clever, some of the integration feels too convenient or forced. The film failed to secure my buy-in with much of this effort.

All this leaves me wondering how audiences who don’t eat up the spectacle like superfans are supposed to reckon this duology with The Wizard of Oz. Do we write off the 1939 film as just a spin-laden version of reality told by the Glinda and the new powers that be in Oz? Do we walk away with the understanding that Wicked exists as an alternate-universe version of The Wizard of Oz? If the former is the correct interpretation, then I think I simply reject the premise because of how it subverts a film that I hold dear in my heart. If the latter is the correct interpretation, then these films don’t do enough to justify their own existence, and audiences can take it or leave it. The two versions of the story don’t work together at face value and it is hard to bridge the gap where they both fit seamlessly.

Darker in tone, less fun, and possessing an inferior set of songs, Wicked: For Good is a step down from the first half. The first half of the story subverts the 1939 film by turning the Wicked Witch into a misunderstood protagonist and the good guys into villains. This second half subverts the first half in ways that may have been more appreciable if the story had been thought through better. The way to make it all work is to avoid the Achilles' Heel of integrating Dorothy’s adventure in the first place and making this a true origin story about Elphaba as a misunderstood rebel emerging to push back against a manipulative but phony Wizard (who was already a morally ambiguous character in the 1939 film) and stop there. It’s still a difficult needle to thread, but it’s possible. Maybe ignoring the origins of the Scarecrow and Tin Man are necessary for success as well, because they both complicate a harmonious union between the two stories.

There is one touching moment just before the credits roll that shows the relationships between the characters at their highest point. While it may give you goosebumps and a feeling of bittersweet catharsis, it also highlights the fact that a lot of the relationships between the characters were skipped over instead of an experienced progression on screen. It’s a subtle reminder for us non-superfans that this two-part film is guilty of trying to do too much. A combined four-and-a-half-hour runtime (sans credits) shouldn’t turn out that way. Superfans are free to disagree with me, but I side with the old adages ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,’ and ‘they don’t make them like they used to.’

FINAL RATING: 2.75 out of 5