Wicked: For Good
★★ 1/2
Wicked: Part One was one of my favorite movies of last year. I genuinely thought it was one of the best movie musicals in a long time, full of energy, color and performances that didn’t just hit, they soared. Which is why I’ve been wrestling with myself trying to understand what went wrong with Wicked: For Good, a sequel that unfortunately fulfills the fears many fans had going in.
If you know anything about the story, this chapter was always going to be darker. Less sparkle, less humor, fewer popular songs. (I had to.) And honestly, it’s hard to fault director Jon M. Chu or the cast for delivering what the story demands. This is the material. These are the beats. The tone is baked in.
But in retrospect, and who am I to say this when the movie is making a pile of money, the entire Wicked story probably would have been stronger as one unified film. Not as long as Wicked: Part One and Wicked: For Good combined, but something tighter, a little leaner and a lot more satisfying as a whole.
Instead, Wicked: For Good constantly feels like it’s one step behind itself. The pacing drags. Scenes linger long after they’ve said everything they need to say. There were several moments where I genuinely thought, “Why are we still watching this?” The editing choices are baffling at times, and the movie repeatedly slows itself down with unnecessary pauses that drain the emotional punch.
We saw it in a pretty full theater, and you could feel the disconnect. People weren’t reacting. No gasps. No laughs. No emotional waves. There’s one scene, the first one that actually gets laughs, featuring Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo’s chemistry clicking beautifully, and you could practically feel the audience sigh with relief. “There it is. More of that, please.”
But the movie never really gives them more.
A lot of the songs in Wicked: For Good are intentionally slower and more somber, which fits the narrative but doesn’t necessarily make for the most exciting musical experience. There are maybe one or two big set pieces that fully justify seeing it on the biggest screen possible, but overall it feels surprisingly flat.
The performances are still strong, especially Grande, who continues to be a delightfully fizzy Glinda. She was the perfect casting choice, in both movies. Cynthia Erivo brings the gravitas again, though the movie doesn’t give her as many chances to break your heart as Wicked: Part One did.
And now here’s where I finally say something I didn’t want to admit during Wicked: Part One: Michelle Yeoh is a spectacular actress, but she feels completely miscast in these films. I didn’t linger on it the first time because everything else around her was working so well, but here it stands out. She delivers the lines, but rarely feels connected to them.
All that said, Wicked: For Good is not a bad movie. I think fans of the story will still enjoy it, maybe even love it. But it’s noticeably more boring, noticeably heavier, and noticeably missing the magic that made Wicked: Part One pop. I can’t imagine anyone watching Wicked: For Good without watching Wicked: Part One, but if they did, it would not be a great introduction to the world Chu created.
If anything, the Wicked duology is a fascinating example of how two movies with the same director, same cast and same creative team can feel so completely different. Film school professors, have at it.
And in case you were wondering: yes, they went all in on making the Tin Man an absolute nightmare machine. If you know, you know.
