“Wicked: For Good” Proves You Can’t Stretch Act Two Into a Whole Movie

by Chris Peterson

WARNING: MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Before anything else, let me say this: this is only my opinion. Truly. Wicked is one of those shows people carry around in their hearts, and it is completely fine for people to feel differently about the movies.

I love the first film. I am a huge fan of the musical. I have seen it four times on stage, cried at least twice, and walked out humming every song like it was muscle memory. All of this comes from a place of real affection for Oz, not snark for the sake of it. I also loved the first movie. So much so, I ranked it as the second-best movie musical of the 21st century.

With that said, I walked out of Wicked: For Good with that strange mix of satisfaction and disappointment that only happens when you have watched something that should have been great but instead just was not.

And the funny thing is, I completely understand why they split the story into two movies. It was a smart business move for Universal. No studio with a property this beloved is going to turn down the chance to build a cultural moment not once, but twice. And the truth is that the first movie earned every bit of its hype.

But here is what has always lived in the back of my mind, even as someone who adores this musical: we all know Act Two of Wicked has always been weaker than Act One. Fans know it. Critics have said it for years. Even the most loyal defenders admit it loses some steam once the big reveal at intermission gives way to a darker, heavier, more tangled narrative.

It still works onstage because Act One carries so much emotional velocity that it pulls Act Two along behind it. But on its own, without that first act’s momentum, it simply does not have the same power. So building an entire standalone movie out of the weaker half of the musical might have been the wrong choice from the start.

And that is exactly how Wicked: For Good feels. A whole movie built out of material that was never meant to do the heavy lifting alone.

The early reviews pretty much reinforce that instinct. Critics have been noticeably cooler on the second film. Some reactions call the movie dull, padded, or uneven. One critic described it as feeling like an overextended third act that never got the buildup it needed. That description honestly stayed with me because it captures the experience so cleanly. Everything is happening. Nothing feels earned.

I had some quibbles myself. I didn’t love the new songs. The entire "No Place Like Home" scene didn’t work for me. I’m not sure adding Glinda to “Wonderful” was an improvement. And maybe it was just the sound in my theater but I didn’t love the mixing on the songs which was particularly evident during "As Long as You're Mine", which felt underwhelming. But again, these are nitpicks.

To be fair, the performances are still strong. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande(Grande gets explicitly better as the movie goes on) do impressive work, and there are moments where the film almost finds its footing, and you glimpse the story it wanted to be. But those moments are islands separated by long stretches of narrative drift. Some critics even went as far as calling it wildly inferior to the first film. That may sound harsh, but I understand where that reaction comes from.

The critics who really went in on the film essentially echoed what I felt watching it. Not that it is terrible. Not that it ruins the universe. Just that it is unsure of itself in a way the first film never was. It wants to be the sweeping conclusion of the story, but it also feels like it was made because a second movie was preordained by the box office potential of the first. And when a movie feels like an assignment, the audience can sense that immediately.

I keep coming back to this idea that musicals, especially iconic ones, thrive on cohesion more than scale. The first film had cohesion in spades. Every choice felt clean and intentional. For Good feels like it was pulled apart by competing priorities. Please the fans. Retell the lore. Expand the world. Connect to Oz mythology. Wrap up every thread. In trying to do everything, it ends up struggling to do the one thing that mattered most, which was to tell its half of the story with clarity.

The truth is that Wicked did not need an entire second movie. It needed one unified vision. The first film had magic. The second had pressure. And in the end, I wish the whole thing had been told in one breath instead of two, because then the ending might have felt as powerful as the beginning. Instead, we are left with a finale that is fine, and fine is not what Wicked deserved.