Podcast Summary: MickeyJoTheatre

Episode: Why did the critics hate WICKED: For Good? | Review roundup for the movie musical adaptation

Host: Mickey Jo

Release Date: November 29, 2025

Episode Overview

In this episode, Mickey Jo, theatre critic and YouTuber behind MickeyJoTheatre, dives into the flood of negative reviews surrounding "Wicked: For Good," the second film in the two-part movie adaptation of the hit musical "Wicked." Having previously presented his own detailed (and more nuanced) reviews, this time Mickey Jo analyzes and reacts to some of the harshest mainstream film criticism, breaking down whether it’s fair or fueled by anti-musical bias, franchise fatigue, or other motivations.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Setting the Stage for Critical Discourse

• Mickey Jo expresses his excitement for "critical discourse," noting the mixed critical landscape post-release.
• He frames the episode: "Do the negative reviews of Wicked for Good feel fair? Or more to the point, have they been written by a handful of film critics who just don't like musicals that much?" (02:50)
• Promises a review roundup focusing on negative takes from major outlets, with his own commentary interspersed.

Justin Chang for The New Yorker: "Wicked for Good is very, Very Bad"

Summary of Critic's Review & Mickey Jo's Response

• Chang criticizes the movie’s expanded runtime, saying splitting the adaptation reeks "of mercenary foolishness" (04:10).
  • Mickey Jo contends this is shortsighted, suggesting adaptation length should fit the material: "Should the Bible be made simply into one feature film? Because technically speaking, it's one book." (06:10)
• The review’s derision for the film’s "digitally shellacked spectacle" and its political undertones receives mixed agreement.
• Chang calls the musical’s pleasures "meager," which Mickey Jo finds dismissive of its enduring global popularity.
  • "Meager pleasures for one of the most successful and best selling musicals of all time?" (07:05)
• Major criticism centers on:
  • Lighting and visual design: "Why is everything...either too dim or too bright, so blindingly backlit that Oz seems to be under perpetual thermonuclear attack?" (12:40)
    • Mickey Jo agrees the lighting is contentious but thinks the critique is overstated.
  • Narrative retconning and connecting to "Wizard of Oz": Called "nonsensically contrived" and sometimes traumatizing, e.g. “Scarecrow’s cornfield crucifixion might be the last straw.” (14:55)
  • New songs are deemed "neither memorable," which Mickey Jo reluctantly concurs—though he argues the score remains strong overall.
  • Grande and Erivo’s performances are faintly praised, but with backhanded compliments.
• Mickey Jo concludes Chang’s review seems to "express its own contempt for Wicked even existing in the first place" (19:21), and perhaps shows bias stemming from untouchable reverence for the original "Wizard of Oz."

Notable Quote:

• “You just wanted to say that so that you could say ‘the last straw.’ That’s not gory whatsoever... It’s really not that traumatizing.” —Mickey Jo, (15:00)

Stephanie Zacharek for TIME: "Sadly, Not For the Better"

Critic’s Review Highlights & Host’s Commentary

• Argues the visuals are "curiously garish yet washed out," and the songs "dishwater hues."
  • Mickey Jo fights back: “If you think the Wicked score is bad, then boy do I have a Broadway musical for you...” (21:00)
• Accuses the film of being "leaden, fanfiction-like" and the score of being "tuneless and meandering."
  • Mickey Jo is frustrated: “If you hate the songs from Wicked, if you hate the score of Wicked in particular... but the Stephen Schwartz score? We think is... ‘moderately hummable’?” (22:40)
• Suggests a single, shorter film adaptation would have worked better; Mickey Jo staunchly disagrees.
• Finds the messages unsubtle or contradictory, noting the allegory is muddled. The sexual tension between characters is called out for being awkward, and the costumes ridiculed ("sex cardigan").
• Predicts the movie will have defenders "whose cries will be heard throughout the land."
  • Mickey Jo laughs off the jab but notes a grudging respect for her acknowledging the audience’s attachment.
• Ultimately, considers the film mediocre family fodder, not worthy of holiday-season status.

Notable Quote:

• “Objectively, Erivo and Grande are lovely to hear. Both can sing, perhaps much better than they need to, given the sluggish quality of the songs.” —Stephanie Zacharek (TIME), read at (22:35)

Naveen Kumar for The Washington Post: 2 Stars, "Defying Gravity No More"

Critic’s Review Points & Host’s Response

• Describes the second part as "letdown... bogged down with plot and bereft of bangers."
• Mickey Jo argues that songs like "No Good Deed" and "Thank Goodness" offer more emotional complexity than critics give credit for.
• Criticizes the need to see both films (and even the original "Wizard of Oz") to follow the narrative.
  • Mickey Jo counters: "If the worst thing you can say about a film is that it's important for you to watch another film immediately before it, I personally don't think that's the end of the world." (30:00)
• Notes Michelle Yeoh’s Madame Morrible as too stiff compared to the flamboyant stage versions.
• Praises some "cinematic flourishes" (e.g. Elphaba's "No Good Deed," Glinda's wedding walk), which Mickey Jo underscores as highlights only possible on screen.
• Concludes the film "is necessary reading to reach the end" for invested fans, but not a satisfying standalone experience.

Notable Quote:

• "As much as For Good is bogged down with a bonanza of incidents, there’s also a lot happening outside the frame that it assumes you're easily following." —Naveen Kumar (Washington Post), read at (28:45)

Robbie Collin for The Telegraph: 1 Star, "Ariana Grande is Painfully Wooden"

Critic’s Review Points & Host’s Response

• Claims the film is "bloated and boring," even for staunch Wicked fans; stageshow “peaks before interval.”
  • Mickey Jo: "I disagree... I also don't think that that's necessarily a bad thing. A highlight moment can come anywhere." (35:30)
• Calls Ariana Grande "painfully wooden" with "1.6 emotions" as Glinda.
  • Mickey Jo fires back: “I thought she was fantastic... She is sobbing with devastation... probably has the greatest emotional spectrum of this film.” (38:00)
• Derides the new songs as insubstantial “wailing laments.”
• Criticizes director John M. Chu for “corporate stretch it out and ring it dry.”
  • Mickey Jo speculates that critics may have judged the film’s two-movie approach harshly before even viewing it.
• Concludes with a scathing headline pun: "Wicked for Ill."

Clarisse Loughrey for The Independent: 2 Stars, “No Magic in This Aimless Slog"

Critic’s Review and Host’s Take

• The "oddly lit" visuals are slammed again, with not much to look at; choreography and spectacle are said to have vanished.
• Says the second half of Wicked was always a "slog," and that the movie adaptation cannot fix it.
• Praises Erivo’s handling of emotional content and especially her new solo, "No Place Like Home."
• Finds Grande less compelling in dramatic moments, but great in comedic ones.
• Argues the film’s endless need to explain every element from "The Wizard of Oz" kills the magic.
• Mickey Jo notes this is Wicked’s entire premise—a playful unmasking of origins as a maturation metaphor.
• Agrees the "No Good Deed" sequence onscreen disappoints compared to its stage power, but finds the review’s focus on what didn’t happen (CGI Judy Garland) unproductive.
• Wraps up with consensus that critiques of pacing, new songs, and narrative weight are "not necessarily unfair," but the overall critical pile-on feels exaggerated.

Notable Quote:

• “At least they're not saying they're bad singers; that I really wouldn't be able to stomach.” —Mickey Jo, (45:50)

Major Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On theme of critics' bias:
  "It does read like this is someone who actually has something a little more positive to say about it, but who is shrinking that willfully at every opportunity." (18:58)
• On misunderstanding musical theatre standards:
  "You play 'Something Bad' and the people at Marie's Crisis will still sing along to that. That is how well we know these songs, and that is how not just hummable, but singable the damn score is." (22:58)
• On negative critical pile-on:
  "It wouldn't shock me if dialing up their opinions to be that little bit more negative, that little bit more controversial... None of that would surprise me whatsoever, in the name of getting a few more clicks amidst the release of a major film." (49:00)
• Self-aware wrap-up:
  "All they have done is hurt me in having to read them today. But I already knew what I thought of the film. None of them have changed my opinion, certainly not for good." (49:40)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 02:12 — Introduction, episode aims, and critical discourse framing
• 04:00-21:00 — The New Yorker review deep dive, analysis of points and host’s rebuttal
• 21:00-23:00 — TIME review responses, including take on the score and adaptation decisions
• 25:03-33:25 — Washington Post review and in-depth host response
• 35:03-45:50 — The Telegraph and Independent reviews dissected, with spirited defense of performances and musical choices
• 49:00-50:15 — Summary reflections on the trend of negative reviews, their motivations, what was fair/unfair, and the likely audience impact

Tone and Final Thoughts

Mickey Jo’s tone is witty, irreverent, and abundantly passionate about theatre. He leans into both personal and communal attachment to "Wicked," but provides reasoned, honest pushback to critics’ weaker points while admitting where some criticisms land (notably with visuals, pacing, and new songs). Throughout, he upholds the validity of multiple perspectives but concludes the negative reviews are “disproportionately harsh,” likely fueled by anti-musical skepticism, overfamiliarity, and the “clicks” economy of film journalism. For fans, the film delivers much of what they want, and, as Mickey Jo notes, “none of them changed my opinion, certainly not for good.”

Suggested Next Episode

Mickey Jo teases a future episode focusing on changes made in adapting Act 2 of "Wicked" for the screen, inviting ongoing audience discussion and feedback.