Wicked: For Good offers a continuation of the story but falls short of reaching the heights of its predecessor. If you thought the first film was dazzling, energetic, and full of magic, this sequel might feel like a step back—more subdued and melancholic—yet it still offers enough charm to keep fans engaged. But here's where it gets controversial: is this shift in tone a sign of deeper storytelling maturity, or a missed opportunity to capture the same exuberance? Let's dive in.
Set in the land of Oz, the narrative takes a fresh look at the infamous Wicked Witch of the West, Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), highlighting her fight for animal rights and her efforts to rally Glinda (Ariana Grande) to her cause. Meanwhile, just as a new character—a girl from Kansas—appears on the scene, the story reveals a more complex political backdrop.
Last year, the first 'Wicked' adaptation challenged a lot of conventions. Directed by Jon M. Chu, a filmmaker known for vibrant musicals like In The Heights and energetic dance films such as Step Up, the movie defied the skeptics who believed musical films wouldn't find a foothold in today's cinematic landscape. Critics argued that modern audiences had moved away from theatre-based stories, thinking musicals were no longer viable grossers. Still, Chu's adaptation defied expectations, transforming the minimalist Broadway source into a visually spectacular, color-saturated spectacle full of sparkle, with stellar casting that included Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, and Jonathan Bailey. It was clear that the film aimed for something more than just a show on screen—aiming to be a visual and emotional feast.
Now, approximately a year later, the story concludes with Wicked: For Good, shot simultaneously with the first installment. It covers the second half of the stage musical, giving audiences a sort of extended, cinematic experience spanning over a year. However, this chapter is noticeably less vibrant—leans into heavier, more somber themes, and contains fewer show-stopping numbers. Unlike the soaring Defying Gravity of the first part, this sequel maintains a more subdued tone, which some might find less thrilling.
The mood shift is quite stark. Where the initial film was lively, exuberant, and filled with colorful spectacle, the second installment adopts a darker, more introspective tone. To set the scene, Chu starts with an explosive opening full of grandeur—fireworks, bright costumes, and lively energy reminiscent of an ecstatic nightclub performance in Emerald City. The aftermath of the previous events shows Glinda (Grande) now a prominent figure in Oz—a kind of celebrity and spiritual leader, akin to Dolly Parton floating in a magical bubble. Her relationship with Fiyero (Bailey), now captain of the Wizard’s elite guard, appears carefully curated through PR, overseen by Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh). The Wizard himself, played by Jeff Goldblum, seems more obsessed with model trains than his own dictatorial rule.
Meanwhile, Elphaba is now branded as an outcast and enemy of the state. She is depicted as fighting back in a guerrilla style—flying on her broom—disrupting massive infrastructure projects, that are reminiscent of a fantastical version of highway development (think of the M25, but animated with CG animals). This action-packed opening establishes the current climate of fear and suspicion in Oz.
But then, the tone shifts—less upbeat, more bleak. Unlike the first film, which was packed with jaunty humor and lively songs, this follow-up feels more serious and somber. The performances reinforce this mood: Goldblum’s portrayal is playful and eccentric, almost as if he’s acting in his own comic universe, whereas Grande and Bailey portray their characters with less flirtation, more brooding introspection. Erivo’s Elphaba appears to be struggling with anxiety, and even her sister Nessarose (Marissa Bode), once a vibrant character, has undergone a sudden moral reversal driven by unrequited love—adding to the overall sense of emotional darkness.
Adding to the disappointment are the musical numbers. The first film’s songs were memorable, energetic anthems that drove the story—Defying Gravity, for example, became a symbol of empowerment. Here, however, the new songs fall flat; while 'No Good Deed' is a highlight—allowing Erivo to showcase her powerhouse vocals—the rest lack the same impact. The fresh compositions, though thematically relevant with lyrics like “Why do I love this place that doesn’t love me?” feel more contemplative than anthemic, and they slow down the film’s pace.
Furthermore, the film’s connection to the original Wizard of Oz narrative feels somewhat disjointed. Key scenes from the classic story are either skipped or only hinted at, such as Dorothy’s presence and face—notably reduced to a running gag on stage—perhaps to avoid direct competition with the iconic 1939 movie. This results in a storytelling style that feels both sluggish and somewhat scattered. While the origins of beloved characters like the Tin Man and Scarecrow are explored in inventive, sometimes grotesque ways—like body-horror nightmares—the film's overall attempt to reframe Oz as a symbol of political and emotional struggle is admirable, if not entirely successful.
In the end, Wicked: For Good manages to capture some of the original’s magic—through talented performances and stark visual storytelling—but it doesn't quite soar to the same heights. It’s not quite Wicked: For Great, but it’s enough to leave fans pondering whether the franchise needed a more exuberant second act or if a darker, more understated ending was the right choice. Do you think this tonal shift enriches the story or diminishes what made the first film so captivating? We’d love to hear your thoughts—are you on team 'more joy' or 'more depth' in your Oz tales?
