Director: Jon M. Chu
Writers: Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox, based on the musical by Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman, based in turn on the novel by Gregory Maguire
Cast: Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Michelle Yeoh, Jeff Goldblum, Jonathan Bailey, Ethan Slater, Marissa Bode, Peter Dinklage, Andy Nyman, Bowen Yang, Bronwyn James

Twenty years ago, I was gifted the novel Wicked by my sister. I didn’t read it (sorry, Hazel). Four years ago, I had the opportunity to see the stage show. I didn’t see it (I opted for Hamilton instead). I have, however, watched snippets of the show online over the years and listened to the original cast recording (Kristen Chenoweth and Idina Menzel) and particularly fallen in love with ‘Defying Gravity’. I also finally recently read the novel to get an idea of what was in store. Not to mention, revisiting the original MGM The Wizard of Oz from 1939 in order to remember where it all began (with a plan to revisit the L. Frank Baum original novel at some point). Is it worth comparing this new screen adaptation of Wicked to its counterparts and inspirations, or is it better to consider how it stands on its own two ruby-/silver-slippered feet?

Long before she was known as the Wicked Witch of the West, Elphaba Thropp (Erivo) was a reluctant student at Shiz university, where she enrolled after tagging along with her younger sister, Nessarose (Bode), in order to keep an eye on her and assist her. Elphaba is forced to room with the popular yet falsely kind (at first) Galinda Upland (Grande). As their lives become somewhat entangled, Galinda, soon to be renamed Glinda, and Elphaba build a friendship, a friendship that becomes tense as their priorities begin to differ. When Elphaba decides she cannot sit idly by as Animals (animals who are sentient and verbal) are slowly being erased from Ozian society, both she and Glinda must decide where their beliefs lie.

Let’s consider this film as a standalone first of all, without comparisons. It is certainly highly entertaining, with the music, costumes, sets and performances all blending into what one would expect from a screen musical. The plot moves along at a good pace (although the romance plotline makes it dip now and again), and the balance of drama, action and song is, overall, solid. It is very colourful, harking back to the colourisation of the Oz in The Wizard of Oz, and is very familiar, meaning there’s a certain comfort to be taken from being back in the Land of Oz. The film does well to touch upon the themes of diversity, racism and colonisation, giving it a depth that we would expect from a musical of this magnitude.

Now, to make comparisons between book, stage and screen seems almost redundant, as all three are very different mediums with pros and cons to their storytelling devices, framing, themes etc. But comparisons are always made between originals and adaptations, so here we are. The book is heavy on multiple themes, from politics to religion, relationships and freedom, nature versus nurture, and many more besides. It is a heavy, dense book, far from the airy-fairyness of the stage show or the film. While the show and film do include many of the book’s themes, much is left out that really shapes the characters, Elphaba especially. From what I’ve seen/know of the stage show, it is the lightest of the three, particularly the ending (though granted we’re yet to see what the film will do with its ending), and so takes the standard form of a two-act musical. The film falls somewhere between book and stage, adding a little more from the book and reimagining some of the show to make its own mark in the Oz universe.

Hardy fans of the show may feel a little disappointed with the film, mainly in the restructuring of some of the musical numbers and perhaps even some performances, however I would strongly remind fans that this is most often the case in film adaptations of stage shows – the arrangements often change to varying degrees to make way for more story and/or dialogue and to break things up a bit, and performances will diverge due to cinema audiences’ needs differing from that of a theatre audience (The Phantom of the Opera in particular springs to mind). Is one better than the other? Not necessarily, just different, and that is what I would personally consider when thinking of this film and the stage show (the Chenoweth/Menzel one, specifically). If you have seen the stage show and/or read the book, I would recommend going into this with an open mind.

As performances go, each one is sturdy, and the characters were well cast on the whole. Erivo is a wonderful Elphaba, with some good emoting during the songs and her overall onscreen presence stealing the scenes. I was personally sceptical of Grande at first and wasn’t very impressed in the first third of the film, but she improved and got into a groove as the film went on. Goldblum made for a fun Wizard of Oz, and Bailey was certainly a dashing Fiyero. Yeoh was a little bland as Madame Morrible (perhaps the lack of a musical number) and Slater’s Boq was more awkward than expected. Bode’s Nessarose felt underutilised, but I would expect that to change in part two.

If a comparison was really necessary, do the performances of Erivo and Grande stand up to that of Chenoweth and Menzel? No, but why would we expect them to? Chenoweth and Menzel delivered stage performances that have stood the test of time, their voices being full of emotion and showmanship that we don’t generally expect from film. Erivo and Grande, fantastic talents in their own rights, go their own way in order to deliver a new version. Do you have to like it? No. Stage and screen both have their positives and negatives, as does the book, but it doesn’t mean one should trump the other, they really are all quite different and each medium gives viewers/readers something new. Chu and his cast and crew did a good job of creating an entertaining musical film and should be celebrated for its diversity in casting, its grandeur and the performances. After all, doesn’t everyone deserve the chance to fly?

Update 23/11/2025
Read the Wicked: For Good review.