Universal’s much-anticipated sequel ‘Wicked: For Good’ has officially landed in theaters, continuing the cinematic journey into the world of Oz – but not everyone is enchanted.
As the follow-up to 2025’s ‘Wicked: Part One’, the film brings audiences back into the magical world originally imagined in L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz, and reimagined in Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel and hit Broadway musical.
The second installment shifts focus, offering fresh backstories for some of Oz’s most iconic residents – including the Tin Man, Cowardly Lion, and Scarecrow – characters central to Dorothy’s journey in the original tale.
But despite strong performances and lavish visuals, ‘Wicked: For Good’ has opened to mixed critical reviews, earning a 68% score on Rotten Tomatoes, a notable drop from the critical acclaim showered upon its predecessor.
Award season recognition still strong, but not unanimous
Like ‘Wicked: Part One’, the sequel is proving to be an awards-season contender, especially in craft and performance categories.
The film received five nominations at the 83rd Annual Golden Globe Awards, some including: “Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy (Cynthia Erivo)”, “Best Supporting Actress (Ariana Grande)”, and “Cinematic and Box Office Achievement”.
Still, the sequel missed out on a Best Picture nomination, a slight downturn from Part One, which previously secured wins at the Oscars for Best Costume and Production Design and earned a Golden Globe for Cinematic and Box Office Achievement.
Missing the theatrical spark
Much of the criticism centers around its tone and musical choices.
While Stephen Schwartz’s original songs were crafted specifically for the film, critics argue they lack the emotional impact and memorable melodies of the stage version.
Of the new compositions, “No Place Like Home” and “The Girl in the Bubble” have both received Golden Globe nominations, but early audience reactions have been lukewarm.
The standout remains “No Good Deed,” a carryover from the Broadway show, which many critics agree delivers the film’s most powerful moment.
John Nugent of Empire summarized the tonal shift, writing: “The tone is different from that of the first film: less peppy, more glum.”
He added that the film is “sadder, more understated, a lower percentage of bangers, and not going out on the literal high of ‘Defying Gravity’ as the first film does.”
His verdict? “Wicked: For Good, sure – but not quite Wicked: For Great.”
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Golden Globes: ‘One Battle After Another’ bags nine nominations

Critical divide: Visual grandeur vs narrative drag
While many reviews praise the film’s production design and costume work – both consistent strong points carried over from Part One – the story pacing and structure haven’t been as well received.
The Independent’s Clarisse Loughrey gave the film two stars, stating bluntly: “There’s no magic in this aimless slog of a sequel.”
Robbie Collin of The Telegraph was even more critical, awarding just one star and writing: “It doesn’t amount to two hours of story – the stage show clips through the same plot in around half the time – and the padding is as obvious as it is exhausting.”
David Rooney of The Hollywood Reporter echoed these sentiments, noting that “on stage, the second act lacks a song as strong as ‘Defying Gravity,’” a gap the film version struggles to fill.
A solid follow-up or a slump?
As the dust settles, ‘Wicked: For Good’ finds itself in a peculiar place: technically accomplished, richly performed, and decorated with award nominations – yet emotionally less resonant for some viewers.
While fans of the original will find moments of brilliance, especially in the performances by Erivo and Grande, critics agree that the sequel doesn’t quite hit the same highs as Part One.
Whether ‘Wicked: For Good’ can achieve long-term legacy or become a beautiful, if flawed, companion piece remains to be seen.
MORE FROM ANNA FERRAZ: Scarlett Johansson teased for key role in Disney’s ‘Tangled’ live-action remake
