Review: Erivo and Grande can’t save "Wicked: For Good"
Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 4:30PM 
Months before it arrived on Broadway, when it first opened for previews in San Francisco, Wicked was already being criticized for an act-two problem. Some finagling was made on the trip to the East Coast, yet the show that premiered at the Gershwin in October 2003 suffered from many of the same structural issues. They didn't stop it from becoming a commercial success or a cultural phenomenon, but still. Two decades later, the revisionist tale of the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good was announced as being split into two movies, alarming those who were familiar with the show and its problems. Financial incentives aside, the decision allowed the first act to soar higher than it would were it still chained to an unsatisfying conclusion, but it left the second part unmoored. Bloating the runtime to double what it is on stage and transmuting a 15-minute act break into a year-long wait didn't help either.
This is not to say that Wicked: For Good was fated to fail, simply that it faced bigger obstacles to success than its predecessor. Sadly, Jon M. Chu and company weren't up to the challenge, no matter how hard the dream team of Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande tried...
As someone who liked but did not love the 2024 Wicked movie, I was cautiously optimistic regarding its sequel. For Good was quick to dispel my highest hopes, however. Rather than leading directly into "Thank Goodness" as the stage musical does, Chu and the Holzman/Fox screenwriting duo devised an action sequence as our reintroduction to Oz, showing Elphaba sabotaging the construction of the yellow brick road in what could be a wink to Gregory Maguire's novel and its descriptions of resistance through infrastructure attacks and terrorism. Right away, it becomes apparent that turning the show cinematic continues to entail an appeal to fantasy epic tonalities.
More concerningly, it further reveals an unwillingness to embrace the inherent artifice and silliness that's been baked into the material ever since Judy Garland stepped into a Technicolor Munchkinland or when Baum's own Dorothy did the same on the page. There's been a slight increase in color saturation, perhaps as a post-production response to the critiques of the first movie, but Alice Brooks' lensing remains a bleak affair and the overall direction follows suit. Nevertheless, there's a fierceness to Erivo's entrance that ought to buy the movie some grace, her precise mix of emotional earnestness and theatrical stylization on full display.
There's not much time to ponder Elphaba's state of mind, though, since now it's time for "Thank Goodness" to welcome us into the fascistic pageantry of Oz and the movie's other protagonist… or not. Remember how Chu was so keen on breaking "Popular" and "Defying Gravity" into pieces? All that dialogue and arrhythmic pauses, interstitial bits of business that cracked open those scenes' crescendo-like constructions? Well, he's back at it again, splintering Act Two's opening song into what are essentially three different numbers whose propulsion has been undercut by a hiccupping array of stops and starts.
"Every Day More Wicked" is fun enough, a skewed recap of Act One that accounts for the year-long pause between the movies. The callbacks to some of the first chapter's most viral moments, visual gags, and choreographies scream of reshoot panic, but they are the sort of fan service one is all too willing to accept from a big-budget Hollywood circus. Yet the cracks are already showing, including the strain in Michelle Yeoh's voice as she tries to sing the Morrible parts of the song and fails so miserably it may give the actress' fans second-hand embarrassment. Her non-musical passages aren't much better, though there are some nice comedic beats with the Good Witch.
By the time we've gotten through the bulk of extraneous stuff and arrived at Ariana Grande's much-ballyhooed rendition of Glinda's "I Couldn't Be Happier" sung soliloquy, whatever generosity still existed for Chu's directorial approach vanishes into thin air. The actress turned pop princess turned Oscar-nominated thespian is giving it her all, opting for a more introspective take on the lyrics that eschews the propagandist extravagance with which Kristin Chenoweth and Megan Hilty colored their Glindas. To further this point, Chu takes a cue from the original staging and Rob Marshall's treatment of Cinderella in Into the Woods, constructing part of the song as an internal monologue aside, unraveling while time is frozen.
The issue lies in how poorly this is communicated, as if there's a schism between the overall vision for how the scene should play out and the camera's mediation. In other words, the design is there, the suspended time effects are there, Grande's performance is there and as miraculous as it was in part one, but basic filmmaking cogency and grammar have done like Elvis and left the building (I could not believe my eyes with a couple of continuity errors). Honestly, this review could be nothing but a string of such observations. "No Good Deed" feels oddly static despite a frantic camera, enacted as if toward a proscenium even when Chu shapeshifts the scene into an immersive flashback mess.
"The Girl in the Bubble" is all about the literal-minded flourish of the camera going in and out of mirrors to the point of self-parody, and "As Long As You're Mine" lacks the juice, drained of formal excitement or whatever jolt of cinematic eroticism despite how much the actors keep doing their best to sell the sensuality (and some pleasant comedy in Bailey's case). "Wonderful" is overextended and arrhythmic and lacking in some crucial spatial awareness, adding Glinda to the mix so that it can have some dramatic purpose and hide Jeff Goldblum's lack of singing skills. But I guess this text will become even duller than these directorial choices if I go on.
So, let's try to look at the big picture and what these issues reveal about Wicked: For Good. Mostly, and "Thank Goodness" is a particularly good example, they evidence how much the film feels both rushed and stretched thin, a bizarre state of affairs whose paradox is hard to resolve. Alas, this was already the reality of the show, and there are various changes that do help the whole thing flow smoother than it did on stage. Consider the larger investment in the principals' characterizations, Glinda above all others. That said, other characters feel diminished by undiscernible motivations – Morrible – or like add-ons that are only there to guide us into the Wizard of Oz and fulfill that mechanical narrative obligation – Nessa and Boq.
Oh, yeah, the pesky IP connection is a nuisance, alright. Following Dorothy's journey would feel like a betrayal of the musical's design, but replicating the odd off-screen stylings of Joe Mantello's original stage direction doesn't work either. Every cut to the Kansas girl, face hidden by distance or POV angle, seems like a visual gag, but by this point in the story, humor has given way to full-on tragedy. The tone is erratic and mismatched, and hits another strange contrast between For Good and last year's screen spectacle. In comparison, the second film feels small and lonely, the gesturing at an epic's scope only exacerbating the sense of isolation.
Which, in some ways, works as a reflection of exactly where Glinda and Elphaba are in their lives. But what makes sense at the level of character drama does not necessarily function as the primary tone for a blockbuster musical, resulting in another tense contradiction at the heart of a movie that doesn't know what to do with it. This is especially sad because there comes a moment, late in the tale, when being overwhelmed by that visceral solitude suddenly hits right where it should, demanding tears from the audience and earning them, for once. If only Chu had conceived of it as a culmination rather than more of the same, a redundancy after so many other passages exulted the same idea.
I'm referring to the song that gives Wicked: For Good its title, considered by many to be the second act's highlight and a symmetrical echo to "Defying Gravity." Reader, it made me cry, which no other rendition of "For Good" had ever accomplished, beautiful as I might have found them. And that is a testament to the welcome simplicity and unobtrusive choices with which Chu frames the duet. More so, it's a reminder that Grande and Erivo are simply perfect as Glinda and Elphaba, their bond so strong and intimately believable that it pummels through the textual troubles to deliver an emotional wallop whose sheer force is hard to put into words.
That's as true here, the climactic musical farewell of the two friends, as it is in the rest of the movie. Grande has the benefit of an expanded arc that deepened what we see of Glinda on stage, and she sinks her teeth into it like any performer worth her salt, taking full advantage of the opportunity to deliver a tour de force. The sharp comedic instincts of the first movie are still present, but they quickly give way to a more melodramatic approach that's just as reminiscent of Old Hollywood stars as her earlier frothiness. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll recoil at the ease of selfishness and find yourself cheering when that impulse is overcome and true goodness prevails.
Also, Gelphie defenders rejoice because, whatever the script may state, Grande is playing the Good Witch as a woman in viridescent love. But of course, great as this take on Glinda is, it could only come to pass in synergy with Erivo's Elphaba, who takes a step back in terms of narrative relevance but nonetheless delivers an inspired performance. I've already mentioned her balance of earnestness and theatricality, though it bears repeating how much the actress manages to excavate the complexities of her character while leaving space for iconographic impact as a figure that was once the archetypal form of pure evil on screen.
She doesn't quite suggest a woman that could, given the chance, morph into Margaret Hamilton's Wicked Witch in the same way someone like Julia Murney did. Yet, that's part of what makes her interpretation unique and worthwhile - a foregrounding of plaintiveness even when everything about a scene indicates that flat fury would be the way to go, a genuine glimmer of belief at the end of "Wonderful," a softness to Elphaba's catfight antics with Glinda after her sister's death. In the end, Erivo doesn't so much explode as she collapses into herself, rendering the green witch a shining star full of potential slowly transformed, by circumstance and external manipulation, into a black hole, cannibalistic grief taking the place of a gravitational pull.
These actresses and their performances are so extraordinary that they survive Chu's oft-misguided direction, the sound mix that crushes their vocals, even the busy design – which is better than in the first movie, in part, because it's been pared down, including Grande's wardrobe consisting of variations of only four dresses. They survive the murky politics whose conclusions are, at best, infantile and, at worst, dangerous in their dictums that systemic ills can be solved by changing one singular person in power. They survive the dubious racial dynamics that see a literal and symbolic minority agree to be vilified and exiled for a greater good that necessitates the preservation of the status quo with just a few tweaks.
Still, though they might survive this dreck with their dignity unscathed, their achievement still worthy of plaudits and much applause, neither Erivo nor Grande can save Wicked: For Good. I suppose a fan that comes to this movie looking for emotional resonance above all else, who wants to be moved and doesn't care so much for cinematic form, might come out of it fully satisfied. But I'm not that person and this is the review of a film, not just a couple of character arcs in isolation, nor two magisterial performances out of context. At best, the stars of Wicked: For Good provide a lifeboat to keep the audience afloat as the mega musical sinks. Down it goes, into the abyss, defying gravity no more.
Wicked: For Good opens tonight, a wide release ready to dominate the late November box office.
Reader Comments (21)
Thank the gay lords!
I couldn't handle the endless press tour of part one. It was almost enough to make me dislike Cynthia Erivo. And I'm challenged when it comes to singers I enjoy (Gaga, Ariana) becoming Oscar-nominated actors.
Hopefully this means part two will not have the endurance through awards season!
Liked the first one but I won't see the second version cos the Oscars aren't the Emmy's.
MrRipley: that's kind of how i feel too. Like, I already saw Wicked.
It's just too bad it wasn't a whole movie.
As a fan of "Wicked" on stage, I hated everything in the first movie - except THAT cameo (these two brilliant ladies 💚🩷).
This second probably is worst.
It should be a masterpiece, if it was made with the original team, c. 2008.
| MJC
Erivo is a good actress. It's a shame she decided to assume that freak persona. She looks like an alien. Poor woman...
What is the Family Guy line about The Godfather, "it insists upon itself?"
Wicked insists upon itself in the most annoying way.
These movies are eyesores from top to bottom, the performances range from good to terrible, the two-part structure reflects (at best) a lack of filmmaking discipline and (at worst) a cynical Marvel-style money grab. And gays on the internet treated John M. Chu like the second coming of Bob Fosse.
When it's all over, we'll be well rid of this phenomenon—just like Barbie before it, and so on. Just exhausting.
Do you know what BAD? The secret agent. Slow, boring, sluggish, pretentious, self-aggradizing, Full of references that even Brazilians who arent From the Recife área wont understand (Brazil is a continental country with many regional cultural diferentes), Full of itself.
Do you know How many crítics Will be Brave enough to say It? None
Amanda P -- You'll be ever so pleased at my extremely positive THE SECRET AGENT review, coming next week :P
Anyway, what do you think of WICKED?
I had no doubts your Review would be extremely positive. Herd mentality has been massively countageous regarding filme criticism lately. Especially when a movie has certain political undertones.
The secret agent's story is a mess. Disjointed, disorganized, Plot holes abound, things make no Sense. But no crític Will be ballsy enough to say só. They Will ALL workshop at it's altar.
Will see Wicked in two hours.
Amanda P -- Considering how much disagreement you can read in the various Oscar volleys we've been posting lately, I don't know what you mean about herd mentality. Hell, I've been awfully alone every time I mention how little SENTIMENTAL VALUE worked for me.
And if you don't think I'm a critic with integrity or enough discernment to have my own opinion, why are you reading a review I wrote? Please don't waste your time.
I do hope you enjoy WICKED: FOR GOOD more than I did. Have fun.
Claudio, Sorry about my Spelling mistakes. Its autocorrect. I'm writing From a phone settled in brazillian portuguese. 😉
And I dont mean YOU when I write about herd mentality in film criticism.
I'm yet to see a film critic who Will dare to say anything slightly negative about The Secret Agente, even though the movie has massive, obvious flaws that are being ridiculously overlooked.
The dialogue in the movie is, at points, laughably bad. Its sometimes remote even for Brazilians who are not From the Northeast, perhaps even If not From the Recife área. Its Full of cliches. Its overstretched, disjointed and boring.
I'm appaled by the universal adulation.
Hope I do enjoy Wicked more thank You do. Thank you
Amanda P -- Thank you for your cordial words.
I think you should go to Metacritic and read the least positive reviews, since they address some issues the critic found with the film. Plus, on Letterboxd, a bunch of cinephiles have expressed similar displeasure to yours. Sure, most of it doesn't come from professional writers, but some does. And even relatively positive assessments, like Filipe Furtado's, mention negative aspects. You just need to look for this stuff.
In my review, I'll try my best to articulate why I don't see the same problems you do. I hope you understand that what you may see as obvious flaws won't be obvious to everyone, or something everyone similarly sees as negative. I love its shaggydog structure, loose in a way that reminded me of things like Altman's LONG GOODBYE, yet you clearly don't and would rather describe it as disjointed and overstretched and boring. I was never bored, and I've seen the film twice in cinemas.
There is no objectivity in assessing art, and I think we would all be better off if we don't presume there is or talk about others having different opinions in ways that suggest dishonesty or, maybe, just a lack of critical thought. This is not an attack against you, btw.
In any case, I hope we can all return to discussing the matter at hand - WICKED: FOR GOOD. Eager to read comments from folks that disagree with me on that one. Heaven knows I wanted to love it.
They haven’t been brave enough to make it last under two hours. I loved the first movie and I loved this. But I can see the problems. Cut off Glinda’s childhood flashback, cut off that horrible song that Cynthia wrote (this is one of the most difficult cases where a director should be mad enough to face his actress ego), some Glinda/Morrible interactions, make Thank Goodness be more cohesive. You arrive to 100 minutes and than you have another masterpiece.
It's a cash grab plain and simple,they could have made it just over 2 hrs and cut some incidental stuff and put that back in for a digital/disc release.
My biggest dread is this getting in over better films and performances,that's what the Emmy's are for.
Claudio. I´m back.
Saw it last night, on a packed theater. The audience was full on board with it from the get go. And so was I.
The story suffers a bit from structural problems that were already visible and noticeable in the source material. The shoehorning of elements from the 1939 movie are sometimes complicated to handle, sometimes you find yourself trying to place the 1939 movie unto this one, even though they come from diferent sources and one source is already a retelling/reimagining/fan fic from the original source.
So the movie has to deal with those issues that were already there before filming even began.
That aside, I thought it was moving, it successfully portrayed Elphie and Glinda´s growth and maturity, their challenges, the personal and pshycological depth of each character, the strenght of their bond, the purity of their love for one another.
The las thirty minutes were arresting, emotional, captivating, moving. The audience was on their side the whole time. You could feel how high the stakes were, the price they had to pay, the weight of their sacrifice. You could easily see, feel and tell how much both women had grown, changes, mature, evolved, and the neverending , life-altering impact they had on one another.
The entire room was crying their eyes out at the end, and a huge burst of applause broke when it ended.
Arianna and Cynthia were both perfect. Mesmerizing. Nothing can be taken from them as far as performances are concerned. The wardrobe scene is breahtaking. "For Good" is flawlessly made.
I find it curious why Nathaniel doesnt have them on their predictions. "Oh the Oscars arent the Emmys". How many times does a thing such as this one gets made, and how often do performers deliver performaces of this calibre? How many movies as big as this one will be made in order for performers to be nominates two years in a row for the same roles? This is so rare, such a unique thing that I think it would be highly unfair if they were denied nominations because of such a personal pet peeve.
And it comes off as particularly weird and if not ironic coming from someone who was hysterically defending Anne Hathaway´s and Emma Stone´s wins for musicals for performances that are miles behind those from this movie.
Was it a perfect movie? Not by any means. Does it have to be? No. Did I throughly enjoy it? Yes.
Do I think it will be better appreciated if seen and understood and one single movie along with part 1? Yes.
I did not care for the two new songs, but I wasnt bothered by them either. It did not diminish or devalue the experience for me in any way, shape or form.
Amanda P -- I'm genuinely glad you had a good time with FOR GOOD. I agree with your take as far as Grande and Erivo are concerned, and that it's easy to be compelled by the film's strong emotions. As stated in this review, I cried and was quite moved by the whole conclusion to Elphaba and Glinda's story.
Also, not to be cheeky, but you'll be glad to know Eurocheese shares a lot of your displeasure with THE SECRET AGENT. Go read his latest slew of capsules, and I think you'll be pleased.
Flowers by Irene -- "No Place Like Home" was written by Stephen Schwartz. Erivo is not credited anywhere for being part of its creation, so don't lay the blame for it at her feet. I do agree that this should have been tightened. Then again, my ideal WICKED adaptation would take on the material rather radically in the second act, structurally if nothing else. Hear hear on cutting back on those needless flashbacks!
@Claudio-Erivo co-wrote it
Flowers By Irene -- She did not. She's not credited in the film's credits, nor on Apple Music, Spotify, or anywhere else. In the FYC material Universal distributed, she's not listed as either a lyricist, composer or producer in the song, only its performer.
I believe Erivo mentioned in an interview or podcast that she collaborated with Schwartz on the new song, but that's it. And "collaborated" can mean a number of things. It was Clayton Davis at Variety who took those words and wrote about it as if she had said she co-wrote it. But neither Universal nor Erivo nor Schwartz ever confirmed it and the second official material on the song came out, the original WICKED writer was the only one credited.
Because of this mess, many assumed she wrote the song and even predicted Erivo and Grande could get nominated in two categories this season, but neither actress is credited as a co-writer in any official capacity.
You guys! The things you make me do. Here I am defending Wicked. The movie is fine. It's exactly the same movie withouth the popular songs (wink wink).
Even before it reached Broadway, Wicked faced criticism for structural issues in its second act, first noticed during previews in San Francisco. Some adjustments were made for the East Coast premiere, but the problems persisted, though they did not prevent the show from becoming a commercial and cultural phenomenon. Two decades later, the story of the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good was adapted into two films, raising concerns among fans familiar with the original’s pacing issues. While splitting the story allowed the first part to shine, it left the second unanchored, and extending the runtime compounded the challenge. Wicked: For Good faced higher stakes, and despite efforts, Jon M. Chu and his team struggled to overcome them.
E-ZPass® New Hampshire