Dive into the enchanting realm of Oz once more, only to discover the magic feels a touch less dazzling – that's the intriguing divide critics are facing with Wicked: For Good. Fans and reviewers alike have been eagerly awaiting this sequel, but as the dust settles on its Friday release, opinions are split, with many feeling it doesn't quite capture the same spellbinding spell as its predecessor. But here's where it gets controversial: Is this sequel's 'lesser' charm a fair critique, or does it stem from sky-high expectations? Let's unpack this Oz-inspired adventure step by step, exploring why some see it as a triumphant encore while others label it a disappointing detour.
Released just moments ago, this highly anticipated follow-up brings back Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande in their iconic roles as Elphaba and Glinda, delving deeper into the backstory of the Wicked Witch of the West. For those new to the tale, Wicked is a clever spin-off from the classic Wizard of Oz, reimagining the story through the eyes of the 'wicked' witch and her unlikely friendship with the bubbly Glinda. This time around, the film expands on the origins of Dorothy's quirky companions: the Cowardly Lion, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Man, offering fresh narratives that add layers to their personalities and journeys. Imagine learning how a lion found his bravery, or how a scarecrow gained his wisdom – it's these character explorations that keep the plot engaging, even if the pacing sometimes feels stretched.
Joining the stellar cast are familiar faces like Jeff Goldblum reprising his role as the Wizard, Michelle Yeoh as the enigmatic Madame Morrible, and Jonathan Bailey stepping in as the charming Fiyero. The film adapts Gregory Maguire's 1995 novel, which inspired the wildly successful Broadway musical, now brought to the big screen in two parts. Fun fact for newcomers: musical theatre like this blends song, dance, and storytelling in a way that's pure spectacle, and Wicked has become a cultural phenomenon, much like how Hamilton revolutionized hip-hop in theatre. Both movies were shot back-to-back under director Jon M. Chu's guidance, the same visionary behind hits like Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights, and Now You See Me 2. And here's something exciting to note: Chu's next project is a screen adaptation of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, slated for 2027 – another musical mash-up that's sure to dazzle.
Critics have weighed in with a range of reactions, and this is the part most people miss – the nuanced ways they compare it to the first film, which grossed over £750 million worldwide last November and snagged two Oscars and two Baftas for its stunning costume and production design, plus a Golden Globes prize for cinematic achievement. Empire's John Nugent gave it three stars, calling it 'not quite Wicked: For Great,' hinting at a slight letdown in overall impact. Total Film's Molly Edwards hailed it as an 'absolute triumph' but pointed out it suffers from thinner source material and weaker new songs, which is a common gripe in sequels – think of how many franchises struggle to recapture lightning in a bottle.
Others were less kind. The i paper's Francesca Steele noted it doesn't reach the heights of Part One but remains highly entertaining, thanks to top-notch performances and a genuine love for the Oz universe. Yet, the Independent's Clarisse Loughrey delivered a harsh two-star review, declaring 'there's no magic in this aimless slog,' especially criticizing the visuals and lack of substance. And if that wasn't tough enough, the Telegraph's Robbie Collin went even further with a one-star critique, arguing the plot doesn't even fill two hours – the stage show covers the same ground in half the time, making the padding feel obvious and tiring. He even questioned the authenticity of the central friendship between Elphaba and Glinda, saying it 'rings false' and turns potentially powerful moments into something frivolous or overly sentimental.
But not all reviews were downbeat. The Times' Kevin Maher awarded it four stars, praising how it tops the first film's energy, ambition, and emotional depth – a bold claim that suggests the sequel might actually improve on the original in some ways. And this sparks a real debate: Can a follow-up truly outshine its starter? Maher's enthusiasm highlights the film's strengths, from the vibrant world-building to the Broadway-style tunes that keep the dreaminess alive.
Performances have been a major talking point, with many spotlighting Ariana Grande's growth. Several experts predict another Oscar nod for her in the supporting actress category come March. Variety's Peter Debruge noted Grande's 'fragility' and more 'nuanced' take on Glinda, who undergoes a complex transformation this time – no longer just the one-dimensional bubbly blonde from Part One. As Debruge explains, 'Whereas Grande had a relatively one-dimensional role to play in part one, Glinda now faces a complex evolution.' The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney added that Grande, with her background in acting since childhood, brings tender depth to quieter scenes of introspection, anxiety, or sadness, showcasing her unwavering loyalty to Elphaba. But he didn't forget her co-star: 'Make no mistake, Erivo remains a powerhouse, with pipes that shake the heavens and a wellspring of unforced emotional intensity that never runs dry.' The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw echoed this, calling Erivo's performance phenomenal in a four-star review, while praising the sequel's retention of the rainbow-hued whimsy and catchy tunes from the first installment.
However, a lingering challenge for Wicked: For Good is the song selection. Most of the fan-favorite tracks, like 'Popular' and 'The Wizard and I,' were saved for the initial film, leaving the sequel to rely on new material. As Variety's Debruge observed, even the Broadway version's second act lacks a powerhouse tune like 'Defying Gravity.' This echoes a broader issue in adaptations: How do you keep the momentum when the hits have already been hit? Empire's Nugent summed it up by noting a shift in tone – less upbeat and peppy, more somber and glum. With the exception of Goldblum, who steals scenes with his quirky, stuttering charisma, the characters feel less joyful, making the viewing experience less enjoyable overall. It's a subtle but significant change that begs the question: Does a darker tone detract from the magic, or does it add necessary depth to the story?
In wrapping up, Wicked: For Good stands as a solid continuation of a beloved saga, blending high-energy musical numbers with emotional arcs, but it's clear the first film's hype has set a tough bar. Critics are divided, with some seeing it as a worthy successor and others as a diluted echo. But here's where controversy really heats up: Could it be that the sequel's perceived shortcomings are actually strengths in disguise – like exploring heavier themes in a children's story? Or is this just a case of sequelitis, where nothing quite matches the original's sparkle? What do you think? Does Wicked: For Good deserve the same adoration, or should it stand on its own merits? Share your thoughts in the comments – do you agree with the critics, or do you see it differently? Let's discuss!
