Wicked: For Good (2025)

3 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Oz and Effect

By Jeffrey M. Anderson

I've never seen the Wicked stage play. I once read the Gregory Maguire novel, but it's long gone from my memory. I usually detest big-screen versions of big Broadway plays, even including some that have won multiple Oscars. I not-so-lovingly dub them "Bulldozer Musicals," because of their lack of subtlety and artistry. But when I saw Jon M. Chu's film Wicked last year, it was a pleasant surprise, an unusually cinematic, unusually entertaining, unusually emotional Big Musical. I loved it, and I was not alone. According to the site https://criticstop10.com, it was one of the ten most acclaimed films of 2024.

Now the second half is here, and we are dealing with a sharp turnabout. The response so far is less than enthusiastic. Complaints seem to run along the lines of: 1) It's too long. Both movies taken together run about five hours, which, excluding intermission, is roughly twice the length of the play. 2) The second half is more serious and less fun than the first half, i.e. it's a "sequel" that is not as good as the original. 3) The movie adds songs that weren't in the play just for Oscar consideration. 4) The whole thing seems like a money-grab, praying on fans to spend twice as much on tickets. 5) There's a general sense of it feeling uneven and bloated. I'll address these points one at a time.

Now, I'm a huge fan of short movies. If a movie clocks in at under 90 minutes it gets bonus points from me. But Roger Ebert once said "no good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough." And so help me, I don't feel like Wicked is too long. I honestly don't know what I'd cut from it (other than those two new songs, which I liked). It moves so well, and it's so fluid and inventive that it never feels stuck or stalled. Its pacing feels right on, like the beat of a drum. As for the second point, Wicked: For Good is not a sequel. It's the second half of a movie. And as for it being more dramatic than the first half, that's just how movies work. There have been so many two-part movies that never received this kind of complaining, so I'm not sure why it's starting now.

Adding new songs for Oscar consideration is a practice I loathe, and I have always been vocal about it. And for this film, they added two, so that each of its formidable stars could have a time to shine. However, not being familiar with the play, I didn't know which songs were new. They were written by the original composer/lyricist Stephen Schwartz, and when they came along in the movie, I enjoyed them. They seemed to fit. If they were cut from the movie and I never knew anything about it, I probably still would have enjoyed myself. I would still like to see this practice of pandering to the Academy's dumb rules abolished, but — what can I say? — this time it didn't bother me.

Is it a money grab? Probably, but many money grabs are lazy, made with the least amount of effort in order to get to the profits. Director Chu used the money to make a good movie. Lastly, releasing movies in two parts is not a new thing. Fritz Lang did it with Die Nibelungen (1924) and The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb (1959). Quentin Tarantino did it with Kill Bill (2003-2004). The final entries in the Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games franchises were split into two parts. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse is a Part 1. So is 28 Years Later. And, of course, everybody loves Dune and Dune: Part Two. It's a good way to tell a long or complex tale without requiring audiences to sit through four- and five-hour films. I'm not sure why this is now a problem.

Anyway, the movie picks up with the characters no longer at school. Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) is in exile, occasionally making attempts to sabotage the Wizard's plans (including the Yellow Brick Road) and trying to expose his lies to the people of Oz. Glinda (Ariana Grande) is working for Oz (Jeff Goldblum) and Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh); her job is to smile and be sweet and let the people of Oz know that there is Good in the world. Morrible, meanwhile, spreads hateful and false propaganda about Elphaba. Glinda is given a motor-powered Bubble to fly around in, to make it seem as if she is magical. And she's engaged to Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey), who works as a head guard for Oz. Nessarose (Marissa Bode) has taken over from her father as governor of Munchkinland and the ever-faithful Boq (Ethan Slater) is by her side, though he still pines for Glinda.

The core of the movie deals with fascism and disinformation, which is something we deal with every day under our current U.S. president. Like him, Oz is the leader of a cult. Oz knows he's a charlatan and a liar, but he also knows that his hold over the people is unwavering. He could tell them the truth, and they would still believe what they want to believe, which, in itself, is a disturbing truth. The play was written during the George W. Bush era, but it's even more shockingly relevant today.

The deepened relationship between Elphaba and Glinda also wrestles with perception. Glinda wishes she were magic, and is not, but must pretend to be anyway. Elphaba is a fighter for good, but doomed to be seen as a wicked witch. Even when the two meet, they must consider the consequences of being seen together. They fight and fight to find ways to fix this situation, and when the inevitable finally occurs, it's a true heartbreaker.

Another pleasure of Wicked: For Good is the way it ties into the classic The Wizard of Oz (1939). That's not the only Oz-based movie — also consider Sidney Lumet's The Wiz (1978), Walter Murch's Return to Oz (1985), and Sam Raimi's Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) — and of course, they all come from a series of books by L. Frank Baum. But Victor Fleming's film is arguably the thing most people think of first when "Oz" is mentioned. The way this new film dances around its indelible images, peeking behind its curtain, so to speak, is a delight. The first time we see the famous foursome Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Lion (voiced by the incredible Colman Domingo), it's only their feet, and it's instantly meaningful.

Finally, Wicked: For Good, I think, establishes Jon M. Chu as a director I'd like to keep my eye on. The first thing I saw of his was G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013), and while it's no great shakes, it inspired me to write this: "has a great deal more grace and goodwill than its predecessor. It moves well, offers up the occasional surprise, and never takes itself too seriously." Every Chu film I've seen since then has the same fluidity and grace. Even if they never seem very important or even artistic, he knows how to put a movie together. So... bloated and uneven? I'd argue no. But I'd like to see what he can do with some more ambitious, original, or personal material. He already struck a blow for Asian representation with the light-n-fluffy Crazy Rich Asians. Maybe that will be his forte? So long as he keeps casting Bowen Yang, I'm in.