There is a moment midway through the second half of Jon M. Chu‘s Wicked: For Good where I genuinely thought I was losing my mind.
- The Silence is Deafening (Literally)
- Glinda and Elphaba vs. The Vibe
- A Bloated Encore
- 5 Things That Held Back ‘Wicked: For Good’
- FAQ
- Why don’t the animals talk in ‘Wicked: For Good’?
- Is ‘Wicked: For Good’ scary for kids?
- Does ‘Wicked: For Good’ follow the book or the musical?
- Is there a post-credits scene in ‘Wicked: For Good’?
We see a crowd of oppressed animals—beings that, in this lore, are supposed to be losing their rights, their voices, and their dignity—fleeing the regime. And how do they escape? Through a literal tunnel underneath the Yellow Brick Road. A subterranean Yellow Brick Road. It’s the kind of ham-fisted symbolism that hits you like a falling house, and honestly? It feels like the movie doesn’t trust us to get the point without drawing a map in crayon.
I wanted to love this. I really did. The first Wicked movie last year nailed that specific, shiny theater-kid energy while keeping the friendship between Elphaba and Glinda front and center. It worked. But For Good? It feels less like a revolution and more like a very long, very expensive curtain call that forgot to include the actual drama.
Look, Wicked: For Good is going to obliterate the box office. That’s a given. Universal has marketed this into the stratosphere, and the sheer power of Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo belting at each other is enough to sell tickets until 2030. But watching it, there’s this sinking feeling that we traded narrative teeth for more beads on a costume.
The Silence is Deafening (Literally)
Here’s the thing that’s keeping me up at night: Why can’t the goat talk?
Dr. Dillamond (voiced by Peter Dinklage) is the emotional anchor of the book’s political unrest. His assassination—yes, the goat gets murdered in the source material—is the spark that radicalizes Elphaba. But here? He’s just… around. We see his weary, enlightened face. We get the vibe that things are bad. But the movie treats him like a set decoration rather than a martyr or a catalyst.
The film’s refusal to go dark is baffling. We’re talking about a story that draws parallels to The Handmaid’s Tale and 1984. Gregory Maguire’s novel is bleak—it’s about surveillance, propaganda, and the slow erosion of self. Chu had the blueprint right there. Instead, we get horned cow-things doing manual labor in a brick-laying sequence that looks less like “cruel slavery” and more like a montage from a slightly depressing construction documentary.
Elphaba rides in on her broom to save them, and the framing suggests we should be cheering for a massive liberation moment. But because the movie never established the stakes—never showed us the true horror of their silence—it just feels like she’s interrupting a shift.
Glinda and Elphaba vs. The Vibe
The first movie succeeded because it focused on the girls. For Good tries to pivot to the war for Oz’s soul, but the enemy is nondescript. Michelle Yeoh‘s Madame Morrible and Jeff Goldblum‘s Wizard were menacing in 2024, but here? They feel like they’re on autopilot. The authoritarian machine they built doesn’t feel scary; it feels administrative.
→ The Visuals: undeniably gorgeous. Chu knows how to fill a frame with color and movement.
→ The Script: oddly wooden. It’s like they spent the budget on digital poppies and forgot to buy stakes.
Even the tragic arcs get sanitized. Nessa (Marissa Bode) is a corrupt governor now, enforcing laws that strip rights from Munchkins like Boq (Ethan Slater). But the film flinches away from her cruelty. We rarely see the anger. It exercises restraint in moments that demand horror. When Boq becomes the Tin Man, it should be a body-horror nightmare. Instead, it’s just… a plot point.
A Bloated Encore
IndieWire’s Kate Erbland pointed out that the year-long intermission made this second half harder to connect with, and she’s right. For Good plays like a needlessly drawn-out coda. It’s an encore performing for an audience that was ready to leave twenty minutes ago.
We waited a year for the other shoe to drop, and instead, it just sort of gently lowered itself to the floor.
It’s frustrating because the potential was massive. You have Erivo and Grande, who are doing everything they can to elevate the material. Their chemistry is still the only thing giving this franchise a pulse. But when the narrative North Star shifts from their friendship to a “war” that feels this safe? You lose the magic.
Maybe that’s the problem with splitting this story. The first half is the setup, the fun, the school days. The second half is supposed to be the consequence. But For Good is too afraid to let us feel the burn. It wants the aesthetic of rebellion without the mess.
And seriously, justice for Dr. Dillamond. If you’re going to pay Peter Dinklage, let the man speak.
5 Things That Held Back ‘Wicked: For Good’
The “Underground” Symbolism is Too Literal
The imagery of animals using a subterranean tunnel beneath the Yellow Brick Road feels clumsy and on-the-nose, lacking the nuance needed for such heavy themes.
Dr. Dillamond is Wasted
Despite being voiced by Peter Dinklage, the character is sidelined as a visual reference rather than a vocal participant, robbing the story of its most poignant political victim.
The Stakes Feel Low
By shying away from the darker, dystopian elements of the source material (like the true horror of animal suppression), the film fails to establish a genuine sense of peril.
Villains Lost Their Edge
Madame Morrible and the Wizard, who felt dangerous in the first film, lack bite in the sequel, making the “authoritarian threat” feel vague and undefined.
It Feels Like Filler
Stretched into a second full-length feature, the story drags, playing more like an extended epilogue than a necessary, dramatic conclusion.
FAQ
Why don’t the animals talk in ‘Wicked: For Good’?
In the lore of Wicked, the oppressive regime of the Wizard suppresses the Animals’ ability to speak, turning them into a silent, subservient underclass. However, the film has been criticized for not effectively dramatizing this loss, making it feel more like a plot convenience than a tragedy.
Is ‘Wicked: For Good’ scary for kids?
Generally, no. While the source material contains dark themes and body horror, director Jon M. Chu has significantly softened these elements for the screen. Scenes involving the Tin Man’s transformation or animal cages are presented with enough ambiguity to remain family-friendly.
Does ‘Wicked: For Good’ follow the book or the musical?
The film is primarily an adaptation of the stage musical by Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman, which is lighter and more optimistic than Gregory Maguire’s original novel. The movie leans even further into spectacle, omitting some of the book’s bleaker political commentary.
Is there a post-credits scene in ‘Wicked: For Good’?
While studio blockbusters often include them, Wicked: For Good functions as the definitive conclusion to the two-part adaptation. Viewers should stick around for the credits to appreciate the massive production team, but the narrative arc is complete.
