Wicked: Por Siempre

Wicked: For Good (2025) Directed by Jon M. Chu Adapted for the screen by Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, from the Broadway musical by Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman , based on the novel by Gregory Maguire, from a story by L. F. Baum.

-

Even at the onset of production on the film adaptation of "Wicked" back in December 2022, it was beset by criticisms as to why there was a need to expand the 2hr and 45-minuter smash Broadway play into two movies with about more or less the same runtime.

But last year's "Wicked:Part One" was such a critical and commercial smash, these concerns fell by the wayside. Its 2hr 17 minute runtime flew swiftly by like a witch on a broom on a mission of doom. It left audiences wanting for more, seemingly proving that there may have been some wisdom splitting Acts 1 and 2 of the source material into separate films.

Alas, the much-anticipated conclusion of the Ozian saga might prove the naysayers right, after all.

"Wicked: For Good" opens and ends with many callbacks to the first film - a fairly standard aspect of sequels and remakes. While it isn't distracting, it is also obvious that "For Good" is retreading grounds already covered.

"For Good" also feels bloated and sluggish as it lumbers toward a genuinely heartbreaking scene between Elphaba and Glinda near the end. However, none of the other supposedly-emotional numbers, particularly the titular "For Good," tugged at my heartstrings the way the Broadway original did. I think it was because the singing and phrasings felt a little off in places. The simpler renditions of the Broadway versions followed a straight line to the feels; Grande and Erivo's emotional recitatives and line breaks don't feel like contrivances, but they felt like needless detours that did take me out of the moment.

Sometimes, simpler truly is better.

The two brand-new Stephen Schwartz songs, created for Oscar consideration - "No Place Like Home" and "The Girl in The Bubble" - are forgettable ballads that lack the instant musical hooks of the rest of the original songs. They also don't fit organically into the story.

Visually, "For Good" has nothing fresh or new to offer, due to the fact that both installments were shot at the same time and must necessarily hew to a consistent visual palette. Jon M. Chu's fantastical sets, costumes, and CGI remain impressive, but with the possible exception of the Kiamo Ku castle environs - where we spend too little time in - and Glinda's sumptuous Art Deco Ozian apartments, we've seen everything before.

Familiarity, contempt.

"Wicked: Part One" had far more energy, verve, and delight overall. Yes, it's fairly common knowledge that Act 1 contains much of the fun, whimsy, and musical bangers of "Wicked: The Musical," and Act 2 is more somber and dark but features the more emotionally-wrenching numbers. But I could feel the padding in the first half of "For Good," before it rushed to its conclusion in the second half.

The characters from "The Wizard of Oz" appear briefly here same as in the musical, but their presence in the film somehow feels even less substantial yet more intrusive than in the source material. I understand Dorothy is necessary for the story's denouement, and featuring her as a new fleshed-out character would bog down the film even more, but still.

The film also missed the chance to address some of the musical's plot holes, which are made even more glaring on the big screen. Like, why did the Cowardly Lion fear Elphaba, his original rescuer? There was likewise no resolution to the Tin Man's displaced rage at his creator. Neither were the Witch Hunters a credible threat whatsoever. All of them were just there for one musical number, then vanish from the narrative.

The addlepatedness of certain character decisions also become magnified on the big screen. In the famous wheat field standoff between Elphaba, Glinda, Fiyero, and the Emerald City Guardsmen, the Witch - now commanding the Flying Monkeys - could've made short work of the troops. Instead, they all fly off after Fiyero trades for Elphaba's release and simply leave him to his fate.

Now, I adore both Grande and Erivo, and Jon M. Chu - who I didn't think much of previously - made a believer out of me. But I don't think "Wicked: For Good" is going to get them their Oscar flowers, for many reasons. One is that the momentum of the thrill of finally seeing "Wicked" realized on screen has largely abated; 2025 featured many other movies that have stolen potential Oscar thunder and audience buzz. If Chu had compressed the story into a 3.5 or even 4-hour film, "Wicked" would've felt like a truly epic film in scope and duration, rather than two discrete installments, one of which will always be stronger than the other. And the Oscar chances for him and his two leads would've been much more great and powerful.

Grande and Erivo still convey an authenticity that informs their performances, undoubtedly as a result of their real-life friendship over the course of making these films three years past. But as far as characterizations go, I felt Glinda's changes of heart and character growth were more compelling in Part 1. Ditto Elphaba's character arc.

Here, the pair have pretty much settled into their roles as dueling leads, albeit tempered by a sincere love and palpable affection for each other. The passage of an entire year in real time - with its genuine real-world drama and challenges - hasn't dampened my desire to see the resolution of this fictional but fantastic friendship, because I did ugly cry at THAT door scene ( you'll know when you see it. )

But it's a little too little, and a little too late in the film, for me.

"Wicked: Part One" will always be one of my favorite all-time movies, the same way "Wicked The Musical" will always be in my Top Three.

I wouldn't say "Wicked: For Good" isn't any good.

It's just not as good as the first time.

As remarkable as the performances are-both Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande truly shine throughout the film (particularly Grande's Glinda, whose maturity and emotional depth anchor much of this second half)-Wicked: Part Two ultimately lacks the strength and cohesion of its predecessor.

Jonathan Bailey, Ethan Slater, Jeff Goldblum, and Michelle Yeoh all deliver standout performances, finally given the space to demonstrate why their casting mattered-something Part One failed to fully achieve for its supporting ensemble. On a technical level, the production design, makeup, costume design, and visual effects remain top-tier, matching the quality and ambition of the first installment. Cinematography is improved compared to Part 1.

However, while Part One stands firmly on its own-filled with the stronger musical numbers, color, and humor that have long defined the land of Oz-this second chapter feels more supplementary than essential for casual viewers. The editing and screenplay choices often prevent key musical moments such as "Thank Goodness" and "Wonderful" from reaching their full impact, trimming them so heavily that their magic is somewhat lost.

Conversely, several numbers receive impressive upgrades-"No Good Deed," "For Good," and "As Long As You're Mine" emerge as highlights, likely to leave audiences humming on their way out of the theater. It's during "I'm Not That Girl (Reprise)" that Grande's performance truly ascends, signaling the start of what could be an awards-worthy portrayal, rich in vulnerability and command.

In the end, while Part Two is undeniably flawed, it remains as enchanting as its material allows, offering moments of genuine wonder even as it falters under inevitable comparison to its predecessor. Despite its uneven pacing, this adaptation manages to refine and elevate many aspects of the Broadway source-ensuring that audiences will still leave the theater satisfied, their hearts light, and their spirits touched by a bit of Oz's timeless magic.

Despite Cynthia stealing every scene with her amazing presence, voice and acting, for me part 2 just didn't work. Weak plot, what was there was rushed through, squeezed in Dorothy etc with no explanation or context, Nessa story not explained (although she's annoying so glad she wasn't on screen any more than needed), very little on the wizard, quick spoiler reveal and then he flew off, and Michelle yeoh is just dreadful throughout. The passion between fiyaro and elpheba was a bit awkward and unbelievable, which is a shame. But the friendship between Glinda and Elpheba was strong and emotional, by far the outstanding performance, but nothing else came close. And the music was just a bit rubbish, perhaps we were spoilt in the first.

"Wicked: For Good" aims high with its musical ambitions, but the final result feels surprisingly hollow. It's the kind of film that promises grandeur - rich songs, emotional storytelling, a sweeping theatrical tone - yet delivers something that rarely rises above mediocre. For me, in contraposition with the previous very well done production, this movie is carried only by a few scattered moments of charm but weighed down by far too many shortcomings.

The biggest disappointment is the music. In a film where songs should carry emotion, character, and narrative weight, they instead feel weak, repetitive, and strangely uninspired. Most numbers come and go without leaving any impression, lacking both melodic strength and thematic purpose. Rather than elevating the story, the music often slows it down.

The script doesn't help. It feels thin, undercooked, and far too reliant on broad strokes rather than meaningful character development. Emotional turns arrive without buildup, conflicts lack impact, and the dialogue rarely adds depth. It's a story with potential, but very little of that potential makes it to the screen.

The pacing is equally problematic - inconsistent to the point of distraction. Some scenes drag without offering substance, while others rush through moments that should carry dramatic weight. The result is a film that feels both bloated and oddly empty, never finding its rhythm.

"Wicked: For Good" isn't without effort or intention, but it never manages to bring its ideas together into something compelling. It's underwhelming, forgettable, and a far cry from the magical musical experience it tries to be.

I'm exhausted.

First let's get the good stuff out of the way. The players are very good. Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are fine singers, and Jeff Goldblum plays the old carny thimblerigger very well. Nathan Crowley's art design is excellent, exactly Mauve Decade as Beaux Arte starts to give way to more modern forms.

The problem is the insistence on going into every detail to make sure we know it's all the fault of wizard and witches meddling with forces beyond their control. Even more exhausting is that it's set to 11 at all times. Just when we think Goldblum is starting to sing an amusing song about how it was all a mistake, it gets caught up in big emotions. When Miss Grande and Miss Erivo are getting into a cat fight that might be funny, it has to be interrupted by an act of grand betrayal. There's no modulation. Drama needs comic interludes, and none are on offer here, just 1990s Broadway Opera Manque, when everyone wanted to be Andrew Lloyd Webber because the old Broadway hands were dead and they knew they weren't bright enough to be Stephen Sondheim.

And if you saw Wicked on stage, and remember it as having some comic interludes and not taking five hours to play out.... well, I never saw it. You may well be right. But once again, I'll note that Hollywood has forgotten how to make musicals, and thinks that making something twice as long makes it twice as good.