Margaret Korte
Print/Podcast Editor
Though the excitement surrounding the release of “Wicked” in November 2024 seemed unable to replicate when the film came out, this fanfare was only bolstered by the anticipation of a sequel to release the next year.
With loveable songs, an unforgettable press tour, and the promise of “Wicked: For Good” to be released the next November, the cinematic experience of “Wicked” last year was unforgettable. Many, who were not already familiar with the stage musical, were introduced to new characters, songs, and a new set of celebrities to love. With “For Good” scheduled to release the next year, “Wicked” was a cinematic universe, rather than just one film.
The reaction to “Wicked: For Good” is much less dynamic than that of “Wicked,” which is to be expected of a sequel. Still, the leadup to its release brought “Wicked” back into the public eye. Expectations were high, as “Wicked” ends on several cliffhangers. Viewers at the end of the movie in November 2024 found themselves wishing they could skip to November 2025 to see how the story ended up, but no time machine needed, “Wicked: For Good” is finally here, and it is just that: good. It’s just fine.
It’s an impressive film. Everything about it is larger-than-life, just like its predecessor. However, because of the frenzy around “Wicked,” the expectation is almost that “For Good” will surpass expectations. However, because “Wicked” set such high standards, “For Good” is unable to meet them.
The film follows witches Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) and Glinda (Ariana Grande), leading their now-separate lives. Glinda has been thrust into a position of power as Elphaba is in hiding, trying to expose the truth of the fraud that is the Wizard of Oz, played by Jeff Goldblum (“Jurassic Park”).
The acting of both Erivo and Grande continues to excel: their chemistry, as well as the completely different but equally talented vocals, make them shine as the movie’s leads. They make even the most ridiculous scenes seem believable. This is an impressive feat, because in “For Good,” it is clear that the screenwriters needed to tie up many loose ends, and quickly.
Even with an over-two-hour run time, the movie rushes to place characters in the positions they need to be, rushing certain scenes and drawing out others. Changes in characters happen rapidly, sometimes offscreen, leaving the viewer confused. Because there are so many characters and so many storylines, it is ambitious of even a two-movie series, altogether consisting of an almost five-hour runtime, to try to follow each story thoroughly.
While many storylines seem rushed, it is also enjoyable to see each one resolved, even if in an obvious manner. References and homages made to both the first “Wicked” and to “The Wizard of Oz” are satisfying.
“For Good” is also more somber than “Wicked,” especially in its soundtrack. Although it includes some noteworthy songs, they are not the catchy, well-known ones from the first movie. The film tries to make up for this tone shift with a few jokes that seem out-of-place.
Despite this, for fans of the first movie, the second movie is a must-see. It is definitely recommended to see “Wicked” first, as the story would be bizarre to anyone who was not familiar with the first film. From the talented vocals to the dedicated acting, “For Good” has all the strengths of the original.
Secondary characters, like that of Jonathan Bailey (“Bridgerton”) and Goldblum also contribute to the film, as they beyond carry their weight with both their musical numbers and acting.
“Wicked: For Good” was released in theaters on Nov. 21. It has a two-hour and 18-minute runtime, and is rated PG for action, violence, some suggestive material and thematic material.
See Also: Review: ‘Wicked’ presents talented cast
 |
Margaret Korte–Print/Podcast EditorThis will be Margaret Korte’s third year on ECHO staff. She made several contributions while taking journalism class her freshman year. |
Support our Sponsors
