When Wicked: For Good hit theaters in November 2025, audiences expecting the same emotional thunder as its predecessor were met with silence—where there should have been crescendos, there were long pauses. Directed by Jon M. Chu, the $150 million musical sequel arrives with the weight of a cultural phenomenon, yet critics are divided: the performances shine, but the story? It’s dragging its heels through Emerald City mud.
What Went Wrong With the Story?
The film’s 138-minute runtime feels less like a celebration of magic and more like a stretched-out epilogue. Reviewers point to a fundamental misstep: Wicked: For Good tries to cram the aftermath of Defying Gravity into a narrative that never finds its pulse. The central conflict—Elphaba’s rebellion against the Wizard and Glinda’s uneasy alignment with Oz’s new order—lacks urgency. Much of the action, including Dorothy’s arrival in Oz, happens offscreen. We hear about it. We’re told how it changes everything. But we don’t see it. Not really.That’s not just a storytelling flaw—it’s a missed opportunity. In the original stage musical, the moment Dorothy steps into Oz is a seismic shift. Here, it’s a footnote. And when the long-awaited confrontation between Cynthia Erivo’s Elphaba and Ariana Grande’s Glinda finally arrives, it lands with a thud. Their chemistry is still electric, but their evolution? Stalled. The emotional stakes feel manufactured, not earned.
Performances That Shine, But Can’t Save the Script
If the script is the problem, the cast is the solution. Erivo, as always, is transcendent. Her voice still cracks open the heavens, even if the songs don’t match the sheer force of Defying Gravity. She’s given fewer big moments this time around, and the absence of a true showstopper leaves a void. Grande, meanwhile, navigates Glinda’s moral unraveling with surprising nuance—her comedic timing still sharp, but her vulnerability feels more restrained than revolutionary.Jeff Goldblum brings his signature eccentricity to the Wizard, turning a cartoonish villain into something almost tragic—a man clinging to power through illusion. Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero is quietly heartbreaking, torn between two women who both love him, yet neither truly sees him. Even Peter Dinklage, voice-only as Dr. Dillamond, injects gravitas into a role that should’ve had more screen time.
But here’s the twist: the film’s visual style works against it. Shot in a flat, digital palette with a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, it looks more like a high-end TV series than a cinematic spectacle. The first film had texture—mist over the Emerald City, the glow of enchanted crystals. This one? It’s sterile. Even the IMAX 6-Track and Dolby Atmos sound mixes can’t compensate for the lack of visual wonder.
Why Split the Story? The Composer’s Defense
The decision to split the adaptation into two films was announced in April 2022 by composer Stephen Schwartz, who argued that Defying Gravity was designed as a curtain closer. “Whatever scene to follow it without a break just seemed hugely anti-climactic,” he told Playbill at the time. It was a logical artistic choice—until it wasn’t.What Schwartz didn’t anticipate was how the second film would become a dumping ground for subplots that didn’t fit in the first. The result? A movie that feels less like a continuation and more like an afterthought. The screenplay by Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox, and original novel author Gregory Maguire tries to honor the stage musical’s depth, but the pacing is off. Characters like Nessarose (Colman Domingo) and the Winkie twins (Bowen Yang, Bronwyn James) are underused. Their arcs feel truncated, not developed.
Who Is This Movie For?
The first film, Wicked: Part One, was a crossover hit—drawn in fans of the Broadway show, casual moviegoers, and even teens who’d never heard of Elphaba before. Wicked: For Good doesn’t have that same pull. It’s a love letter to the faithful, but a mystery to everyone else. Dorothy’s inclusion, while narratively necessary, feels tacked on. The film doesn’t integrate her into the world—it just drops her in and expects us to care.And that’s the real tragedy. The stage musical thrived because it made the witch sympathetic. This sequel forgets that. It’s less about Elphaba’s journey and more about setting up a third act that never comes. There’s no real villain to defeat. No final battle. Just a quiet, unresolved ending that leaves audiences wondering: was this worth the wait?
What’s Next for Oz?
Universal Pictures is already eyeing merchandising deals and potential theme park expansions, but the box office numbers will tell the real story. If Wicked: For Good underperforms, it could signal the end of big-budget musical sequels for a while. The risk was always high—$150 million is a lot to bet on a story that’s already been told twice (on stage, then on screen). But if the narrative doesn’t land, even the most powerful voice in musical theater won’t save it.For now, the magic of Oz feels a little dimmer. The music still soars. The performances still dazzle. But the heart? It’s missing a beat.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does Wicked: For Good feel so slow compared to the first movie?
Critics and viewers note the sequel lacks a clear central conflict after the climax of Defying Gravity. With much of the plot—like Dorothy’s arrival—happening offscreen, the film relies on exposition instead of action. At 138 minutes, it’s overlong without enough new stakes to justify the runtime, making it feel more like an extended epilogue than a full story.
Did Cynthia Erivo get enough big musical moments in the sequel?
No. While Erivo’s vocal control remains astonishing, she’s given no song that rivals the power of Defying Gravity. The score, composed by Stephen Schwartz, leans heavily on reprises and quieter ballads, which suit the film’s tone but disappoint fans expecting another showstopping anthem. The absence of a new signature number is one of the most consistent criticisms from both audiences and critics.
Why was Dorothy introduced so late in the story?
Dorothy’s arrival is a narrative pivot from the original novel and musical, meant to connect Wicked to The Wizard of Oz. But in this film, she’s barely present. Her entrance is described, not shown, and her impact on Elphaba and Glinda’s arc is minimal. This underuse makes her feel like a plot device rather than a catalyst, frustrating fans who expected her to challenge the moral ambiguity of Oz’s power structure.
Is there a chance of a third Wicked movie?
Universal hasn’t confirmed anything, but the lackluster critical reception and potential box office underperformance make a third film unlikely. The studio’s strategy was built on two films to maximize revenue from a single property. A third would require strong audience demand and critical redemption—neither of which are currently in place. The story, as told, feels complete—even if unsatisfyingly so.
How did the film’s visual style affect its reception?
The flat, digital cinematography and lack of vibrant color grading made Oz feel less magical than in the first film. Where Part One used lighting and texture to evoke wonder, For Good leaned into a sanitized, almost clinical look. Even IMAX and Dolby Atmos couldn’t overcome the visual dullness, leading reviewers to say it looked more like a streaming series than a cinematic event.
Who wrote the screenplay, and did they stick to the original musical?
The screenplay was co-written by Winnie Holzman (original Broadway book writer), Dana Fox, and Gregory Maguire (author of the 1995 novel). While they retained key songs and character arcs, they expanded subplots that didn’t land emotionally. The result is a film that honors the source material but doesn’t deepen it—making it feel more like a faithful adaptation than a bold evolution.
