Wicked: For Good Feature Scores
Explore all 50 feature scores for Wicked: For Good, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
50 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.015 (30%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.47 (14%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.417 (34%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.48 (16%)
-
Very negative below 1.53 (6%)
Pros
Sort
-
Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande receive overwhelming praise, often described as the reason the film survives its weaker plotting and pacing. Their vocals, dramatic work, and shared scenes are consistently highlighted.
-
The performances are one of the film’s safest strengths, with the central cast repeatedly praised for carrying material that many reviewers found structurally weaker. Even mixed reviews often single out the acting as a reason the sequel still works.
-
Costumes are a standout craft element, repeatedly described as lavish, imaginative, character-rich, and visually striking. Even reviews critical of the movie’s lighting tend to praise the wardrobe itself.
-
Production design is among the strongest consensus positives. Oz is repeatedly described as elaborate, colorful, detailed, sumptuous, and richly built even by critics who dislike the lighting or CGI layered over it.
-
The emotional payoff is one of the strongest areas of agreement. The Elphaba-Glinda relationship, especially the title duet and final stretch, is repeatedly described as moving, tear-inducing, and cathartic.
-
The film is widely seen as a faithful translation of Act II, which pleases established fans but also preserves many of the stage version’s structural weaknesses. Several reviewers explicitly treat that faithfulness as both strength and limitation.
-
Erivo and Grande’s shared chemistry is repeatedly described as electric and central to the movie’s emotional pull. Romantic chemistry draws more mixed reactions, especially around Elphaba and Fiyero.
-
The darker dramatic mode generally lands well when the film focuses on friendship, sacrifice, and political pressure. Reviewers who respond to it describe the sequel as more human, serious, and emotionally potent.
-
The most enthusiastic reviewers see the two-film adaptation as something they will revisit for years, especially for the performances, musical moments, and return to Oz.
-
The orchestral score is praised for giving the darker story weight and for carrying musical themes effectively through the film.
-
Fans of the stage musical are widely expected to get more from the film than newcomers or viewers lukewarm on Part One. Several reviews frame it as a satisfying fan experience even when broader appeal feels less certain.
-
The supporting ensemble is generally well regarded, with praise for performers such as Jonathan Bailey, Ethan Slater, Marissa Bode, and Jeff Goldblum. Michelle Yeoh’s singing and several underused roles draw the main reservations.
-
Humor is noticeably reduced from Part One, and some critics miss the comic spark that balanced its sentimentality. Others still find Glinda’s reactions, Jeff Goldblum’s Wizard, and isolated comic beats genuinely funny.
-
The makeup and styling receive strong praise where discussed, contributing to the film’s elaborate Oz aesthetic and character presentation.
-
The home-media audio presentation earns strong praise for crisp vocals, powerful bass, directionality, and an expansive soundstage.
-
The reviewers who discuss the theatrical or home-media value directly find the spectacle, technical presentation, and extras substantial enough to justify the experience.
-
The darker transformations and body-horror touches are effective for some reviewers, who find them creepy and memorable. Others note that the intensity may be unsettling for younger viewers.
-
The action earns positive notices when it arrives, especially broom-flight chases and heavier physical set pieces. Reviewers describe these moments as clever, energetic, and more forceful than expected.
-
As a movie musical, the film works best for viewers already receptive to the form and the source. The leads, spectacle, and musical presentation satisfy genre fans even when the second-act songs are considered weaker.
-
Where discussed broadly, the spectacle and magical effects are praised for helping make Oz feel grand and cinematic.
-
A few darker sequences generate real tension, particularly around transformations, political danger, and the build toward Glinda’s wedding and the witch hunt.
-
The practical craft receives favorable notice, especially when tactile sets and in-camera elements help Oz feel physically realized rather than purely digital.
Cons
Sort
-
The screenplay draws substantial criticism for disjointed structure, underexplained turns, repetitive ideas, and additions that do not justify the expanded runtime.
-
Pacing is the most persistent complaint. Reviewers repeatedly describe a strange combination of dragging scenes and rushed plot turns, with the two-film split often blamed for making Act II feel both padded and hurried.
-
The story becomes harder to follow as it intersects with The Wizard of Oz. Reviewers criticize abrupt character turns, missing connective tissue, and an expectation that viewers will fill gaps from prior knowledge.
-
Digital effects are a recurring visual weak spot. Reviewers call out uncanny de-aging, artificial animals, and conspicuous digital environments, though a few felt the effects integrated well enough with the practical sets.
-
Editing is one of the clearer weaknesses, with complaints about choppy musical staging, awkward transitions, and material that feels in need of substantial trimming.
-
The central friendship remains compelling, but the story is widely regarded as weaker than Part One. Critics repeatedly point to Act II’s rushed turns, Wizard of Oz overlap, and strained connective plotting.
-
Some reviewers feel the digital sheen and greenscreen-like environments make the world look artificial. The most positive comments come when physical sets and grounded textures overcome that effect.
-
Dialogue receives limited but negative attention, mainly for repetitive wording and lines that feel clunky or overused. These complaints reinforce broader concerns about the script.
-
The implied intimacy between Elphaba and Fiyero is mild by adult standards but drew criticism for feeling awkward, prolonged, or potentially uncomfortable for families expecting a straightforward PG musical.
-
The shorter runtime is appreciated compared with Part One, but many still consider the film overlong for the amount of story it contains. Several reviewers argue substantial trimming would improve it.
-
One review raises a pointed concern about how the film’s romance and language may reinforce troubling ideas around desirability and skin tone. That criticism is specific rather than broadly echoed.
-
Reworking familiar Wizard of Oz events can be clever and fun, but some critics see the second half as overly dependent on inherited plot machinery. A few appreciate the creative connections as a fresh spin.
-
The romance is sharply mixed. Some find Elphaba and Fiyero moving or passionate, while others call their physical relationship rushed, hollow, awkward, or disruptive to the stronger friendship story.
-
Camera movement and a few musical sequences are praised, but the dim, washed-out, heavily backlit look is a persistent complaint. Reviewers are split between admiring inventive framing and wishing the imagery were easier to see.
-
Jon M. Chu’s direction splits reviewers sharply. Some celebrate the scale, musical staging, and visual ambition, while others criticize conventional blocking, overstuffed frames, or a lack of cinematic spark.
-
The more consistently somber tone works better for some reviewers than Part One’s abrupt shifts, but others find the seriousness at odds with Oz’s inherent whimsy or disrupted by misplaced comedy and romance.
-
Oz’s physical design remains rich, but reviewers differ on whether the film makes the society feel truly lived-in. Some praise the detailed environment; others say crowds and digital landscapes keep the world emotionally distant.
-
The film’s strongest original touches come from how it expands or reframes familiar Oz material, but some reviewers feel too much of the adaptation simply repeats established beats or adds material without enough payoff.
-
The film keeps most violence restrained or implied, which some reviewers appreciate, though darker threats, beatings, and body-horror transformations still give the sequel a more intense edge.
-
The music is one of the most divided areas. The title song and No Good Deed are frequent highlights, but reviewers repeatedly say Act II lacks Part One’s memorable songs and find the new additions forgettable or merely serviceable.
-
The political and moral messaging is one of the most debated elements. Some reviewers find the warnings about propaganda, authoritarianism, prejudice, and complicity timely and powerful; others find the treatment shallow or muddled.
-
The finale is divisive: some reviewers find it bittersweet, moving, and satisfying, while others call it rushed, contrived, anticlimactic, or tonally mismatched with the story’s darker implications.
-
Families may appreciate the restrained violence and PG approach, but darker themes, frightening transformations, and an implied intimate scene make the sequel less universally comfortable for younger viewers.
-
The sequel’s darker themes can be potent, especially around propaganda, prejudice, power, complicity, and moral compromise. Reviewers disagree on whether the film explores those ideas deeply enough or only gestures toward them.
-
The PG-friendly restraint works for some families, but the darker second half, body-horror transformations, and mature themes made several reviewers question suitability for younger children.
-
Glinda’s expanded arc earns substantial praise, while several supporting characters are criticized as rushed or underdeveloped. The result is strong growth at the center but uneven attention around the ensemble.
-
Visually, the film is a major point of division. Sets, costumes, scale, and color can look sumptuous, but dim lighting, desaturation, backlighting, and artificial-looking CGI repeatedly blunt the intended wonder.
-
Overall enjoyment is mixed but generally respectable. Devoted fans and viewers swept up by the performances often have a good time, while others find the long, uneven second act a slog.
Cast & Creators
-
ElphabaErivo earns near-universal praise for powerhouse vocals and a more vulnerable, mature Elphaba. Even reviewers disappointed by the film repeatedly cite her acting and singing as reasons the sequel remains compelling.
-
Galinda/GlindaGrande is one of the film’s clearest strengths, with reviewers praising her comic timing, vocals, dramatic restraint, and the added depth she brings to Glinda. Her quieter heartbreak and growth are repeatedly singled out as highlights.
-
Prince FiyeroBailey receives strong notices for bringing more gravity, tenderness, and nuance to Fiyero. Reviewers often say he makes a lot of limited screen time, even when the character or romance is underwritten.
-
BoqSlater is praised for giving Boq anger, sorrow, and menace as his story darkens. Reviewers who discuss him tend to like the performance and often wish the film gave him more room.
-
Costume DesignerTazewell’s costumes are a consistent visual highlight, praised as imaginative, character-rich, and strikingly detailed. The wardrobe remains impressive even when reviewers dislike how the film photographs it.
-
Production DesignerCrowley’s production design is strongly praised for elaborate, eye-popping sets that give Oz physical scale and detail. Even visually critical reviews tend to separate the rich set work from lighting or CGI problems.
-
NessaBode is well regarded for showing darker and more conflicted sides of Nessarose. Reviewers praise the emotional weight she brings even when the character’s arc feels rushed by the screenplay.
-
The WizardGoldblum’s Wizard is frequently enjoyed as a charming, conniving source of comic relief, though reactions are uneven. Some reviewers find his performance or singing weak, stilted, or disconnected from the rest of the ensemble.
-
CinematographerBrooks’ cinematography divides reviewers: fluid camera movement and some carefully composed musical sequences earn praise, while dim lighting, desaturation, and heavy backlighting draw sharp criticism.
-
young GalindaSpears earns a brief but emphatic compliment for her casting as young Galinda, with the flashback appearance described as a perfect fit.
-
DirectorChu’s direction is highly divisive. Admirers praise ambitious staging, scale, and several inventive musical sequences, while detractors fault flat blocking, overbusy framing, tonal choices, and an insufficient cinematic reworking of Act II.
-
WriterFox’s screenplay contribution draws mixed-to-negative reactions: some reviewers like the clever intersections with Oz lore, while others criticize the writing for playing safe or preserving structural problems from the stage version.
-
WriterHolzman’s writing contribution is mixed-to-negative: some reviewers appreciate clever connections to The Wizard of Oz, while others criticize the script for playing safe and retaining the stage version’s structural weaknesses.
-
Madame MorribleYeoh’s Madame Morrible splits opinion: her ominous presence and villainous edge can be chilling, but her singing is repeatedly singled out as a weak point and some critics find her the ensemble’s weakest performer.
-
Cowardly LionDomingo’s Cowardly Lion performance is liked when reviewers hear enough of it, but most complaints are about how little material he receives. Several critics call the role an underuse of a strong performer.
-
Composer/LyricistSchwartz’s new material receives muted reactions overall. Reviewers often find the added songs less memorable than the established Act II highlights, with some criticism of lyrics and composition despite acknowledging their narrative purpose.