As one of the world’s most popular musicals, it always felt inevitable that the film adaptation of Wicked would land well with fans – and, by extension, the box office. Even so, last year’s Wicked “defied gravity” – see what I did there, by soaring to nearly $760 million worldwide, becoming the highest-grossing movie musical of all time and the fifth highest-grossing film of 2024. That’s no mean feat for this genre.
A huge part of that success came from the show’s existing popularity, of course, but Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo’s electric chemistry, combined with Universal Pictures’ fantastic marketing campaign, certainly helped seal the deal.
What was less warmly received was the decision to split the musical into two films. Fans widely lamented the choice, arguing that the second half of the stage show – which follows Elphaba’s iconic Defying Gravity moment – simply isn’t as strong. So how does the follow-up, Wicked: For Good, shape up?
Set an unspecified period in the future, the film finds Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo) living as an outcast, smeared by Madame Morrible’s (Michelle Yeoh) propaganda as the Wicked Witch of the West. From her forest hideout, she continues to fight for animal rights, while her friend-turned-adversary Glinda (Ariana Grande) steps further into the spotlight as the Wizard’s spokesperson.
Chemistry that sparkles
The returning cast remains one of the film’s greatest assets. Although Grande and Erivo share fewer scenes here than in the first instalment, when they do appear together their chemistry is unmatched in modern musical filmmaking. Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Yeoh bring gravitas as the Wizard and Madame Morrible, and fans will continue to swoon over Jonathan Bailey’s Fiyero.
Visually, Wicked: For Good mirrors the first film, as expected. Oz glistens with colour and opulence; from the shimmering Emerald City to the tulip-filled fields of Munchkinland (filmed in King’s Lynn, UK), it’s a gorgeous world to spend time in. Personally, I find the criticisms of the colour grading to be unfounded.
Where the film stumbles however, is in pacing and structure. As many fans have mentioned – and rightly so – the second half of Wicked just isn’t as strong musically or narratively. That’s not a filmmaking flaw so much as a limitation of the source material, which the production can’t reasonably deviate from.
There are attempts to bolster things, including new songs for both Erivo and Grande. But No Place Like Home and Girl in the Bubble, while beautifully sung, don’t quite land with the impact of the Act I numbers; they stand out as later additions, even to someone who hasn’t seen the stage show.
With the exception of No Good Deed – performed spectacularly by Erivo – and the emotionally charged For Good (which features some genuinely haunting imagery), this instalment lacks the songwriting brilliance that made the first film so compelling.
The film’s pacing could be sharpened up
The pacing is also oddly inconsistent: the first 30 minutes feel slow, yet somehow we race into the finale before the story feels fully settled. I can’t pinpoint exactly what I’d change, but despite being 30 minutes shorter than its predecessor, the film feels longer.
In some ways, it feels as though Jon M. Chu and the production team attempted to give Wicked: For Good the scale and tone of a superhero movie, and some of those choices don’t land as well as intended.
Still, Wicked: For Good delivers a satisfying conclusion to one of last year’s biggest successes. The cast remains the film’s strongest suit, offering rich chemistry and powerhouse vocals. Unfortunately, its reliance on the stage show means the songs lack punch and the pacing never quite finds stable ground.
