I was really looking forward to “Wicked: For Good” in a movie landscape that seems to hover between big yet disappointing blockbusters and independent masterpieces. The first “Wicked’” was able to straddle that line of being a blockbuster and being critically successful, and I was longing for something like that to usher in the 2026 awards season.
But unfortunately, “Wicked: For Good” struggles with pacing and coherence, making it hard to stay engaged despite some good moments, which affects how viewers might perceive its overall quality.
The filmmakers faced a tough challenge adapting the second act of “Wicked”, which is generally considered weaker due to fewer songs and more references to the “Wizard of Oz”, but they missed chances to deepen the story, leaving some elements underdeveloped and unengaging.
Boq and Fiyero mostly vanish from the story. Unlike the stage show, which offers a Doylistic explanation — one that accounts for real-life limitations rather than trying to explain something away through the narrative — for the actors having to get into complex makeup, the film does not explain their absence, which disrupts the narrative flow and confuses viewers.
One thing they had the opportunity to do was expand the role of the cowardly lion (as with the CGI it would be easier to portray him on screen than on stage) but instead we still barely get him in it; we instead get bogged down in unnecessary detours.
Still, Jon M. Chu flexes his filmmaking instincts: Adding Glinda to the song “Wonderful” was a good change that avoided the same traps that “Sentimental Man” falls into in the first movie.
The film’s visuals lack the vibrancy of the first installment, with duller color grading and cheap-looking animals that make Oz seem lifeless and underfunded. I also don’t think it was necessary to digitally de-age Jeff Goldblum to play the young wizard, when it looks horrible, and there’s only one singular shot.
The 1939 “Wizard of Oz” film provided a more realistic-looking scarecrow than Jon M. Chu did in 2025, with many people pointing out that Jonathan Bailey looks more like Ryan Reynolds in the Scarecrow makeup than himself.
Out of the two songs added to the film, only one is worth the time it takes to watch. “No place like home” grinds the movie to a halt right as it’s getting started. “Girl in the Bubble” on the other hand, does provide some much needed depth to Glinda as we follow her journey from student to mascot of the Wizard, to disillusioned with the whole system.
Though Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande both deliver strong performances, the dullness of the supporting cast overshadows their good work. Michelle Yeoh seems to have phoned it in, playing the complicated Madame Morrible in the dullest way possible, barely reacting to her costars.
Chu also appears to have finally run into the issue of casting weak singers in roles that require a lot of singing (something I pointed out in my review of the first film), and listening to Yeoh and Goldblum be autotuned to high hell and still not able to hit the notes required of them is incredibly grating.
Bailey is also severely underused: What he is given is a dull Fiyero that is reduced to a Ken doll that passes between the two leads like a very boring sexy lamp. Giving credit where credit is due, Ethan Slater does flex his range as Boq/the Tin Man. Though again, he’s not given a lot to work with. However, his rage might be more from his fallout with Ariana Grande after their breakup than anything else.
The tragedy of “Wicked” is not lost under all these problems. Erivo and Grande both deliver memorable performances that tug at the audience's hearts. Ultimately, all its good moments do not provide enough steam to get “Wicked: For Good” up and running again, and though it does contain heart and courage, there’s not enough brains to bring it back home.
