Wicked: For Good (Christian Movie Review)
While it lacks the infectious songs and upbeat energy of its predecessor, Wicked: For Good is an immersive, showstopping visual spectacle that may not be better than the first film but offers a more emotional and thematically rich experience.
About the Film
Dorothy might want to go home to Kansas, but audiences have been yearning to return to the wonderful world of Oz. Wicked (2024) was a cultural phenomenon, a box office juggernaut ($759 million) and critical darling (ten Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture). It was an enjoyable film, and Wicked: For Good keeps the good times rolling. While it lacks the infectious songs and upbeat energy of its predecessor, Wicked: For Good is an immersive, showstopping visual spectacle that may not be better than the first film but offers a more emotional and thematically rich experience.
Originally conceived as merely Part 1 and Part 2, Wicked: For Good feels more like a sequel than a continuation. It picks up the story after some time has passed since the gravity-defying ending of the first film with a darker and more dramatic—if also slightly less fun—tone. In several ways, Wicked: For Good is the superior film. Whereas the original felt at times like a parade of irresistible songs in need of a unifying plot, Wicked: For Good offers an engaging story, whether supported by songs or not. The film also ramps up the visual spectacle in a way that seems destined to garner award consideration once again.
The beating heart of the story remains the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda. Akin to Frodo and Samwise in Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, there is something edifying about the elevation of same-sex friendship (satisfying a desire expressed by today’s younger moviegoers). Actresses Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande have been lightning rods for controversy (some warranted, much of it not), but both prove to be perfectly cast. Grande stole the first movie (earning an academy award nomination) and she remains excellent. But Wicked: For Good allows Erivo to shine. Her voice is angelic, but she also brings a more emotionally resonant and vulnerable performance to this film.
Where the movie falters is often an unavoidable byproduct of its source material. The best songs from the hit Broadway musical were included in the first film. “No Good Deed” and “For Good” leave an impression—both in the singing and staging— but Wicked: For Good lacks additional standout, sing-along musical numbers. The film also feels more rushed and restricted by the need to connect the dots to the events of the Wizard of Oz tale. Intriguing characters like Nessarose (Elphaba’s sister) and Boq become mere cogs in service to the plot rather than vibrant characters in their own right. Even the central Elphaba and Glinda dynamic feels shortchanged at times.
With a provocative title like Wicked: For Good and a revisionist approach that “redeems” a notoriously evil witch, some Christian audiences may be concerned by the film at a conceptual level. Some of the tension points from the first film remain, including several dramatic scenes in which Elphaba conducts spells from a magic book (the “Grimmerie”). Those who are uncomfortable with fictionalized witchcraft—particularly when undertaken by a protagonist—will be better off skipping this return to Oz.
In other ways, Wicked: For Good is less problematic than its predecessor. Yes, the lead up and implied sexual encounter between two characters pushes the upper limits of a PG rating, but the prominence of sexuality and sexual identity is much less overt in this film. Likewise, the first film largely blamed society for the existence of evil, with its iconic line, “Are people born wicked or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?” In contrast, the sequel promotes a more nuanced perspective of moral responsibility that better aligns with a Christian worldview (more below).
Overall, Wicked: For Good may not be quite as fun or vibrant as Wicked, but it offers a satisfying and more dramatic conclusion to the tale. If the first film felt like a product of its time, an illuminating glimpse into the pervading values of today (for better or worse), then Wicked: For Good feels like a timeless myth about the internal struggle between good and evil. At the end of the film, the characters question the difference between “better” and “good.” Whether this sequel is “better” is debatable, but it is certainly “good,” and that is probably enough for most audiences.
For Consideration
On the Surface—(Profanity, Sexual content, violence, etc.).
Language: None.
Violence: None.
Sexuality: Two characters remove their outermost garments and climb into bed together, with one expressing that she “feels wicked.” They wake up in bed together, and the man is bare chested. A minor side character is gay, and the male population in Oz is somewhat flamboyant.
Other: The Wizard of Oz drinks various unspecified green concoctions.
Engage The Film
Good, Evil, and Moral Responsibility
Both Wicked films explore the nature of good and evil, but not in the same way. In the song “Wonderful,” the Wizard sings, “Where I’m from, we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history […]. There are precious few at ease, with moral ambiguities. So we act as though they don’t exist.” Much of the film shows Elphaba fighting against that relativist thinking and affirming that there is an absolute standard of good and evil (even if, in the film, God isn’t its author).
The first movie operated under the premise that people are fundamentally good and have wickedness thrust on them by a corrupt society. It is a film about pushing for societal reform rather than for internal growth. In contrast, Wicked: For Good more closely aligns with Christian theology, showcasing that people must strive to overcome their sinful nature to pursue goodness. Even Elphaba—a largely blameless heroine in the first film—is tempted to give into her hurt and anger and finally become the wicked witch the world believes her to be.
The citizens of Oz are obsessed with labeling good and evil, even if they struggle to accurately discern the difference between the two. The film affirms that only our actions reveal the good or evil in our hearts. Elphaba questions herself, “Was I really seeking good / Or just seeking attention?” Eventually, she challenges Glinda, “Good can’t just be a word. It has to mean something.” Goodness is not about titles or public reverence but about action. In the end, Elphaba embraces the “wicked” label not as a means of accepting evil but to show that she no longer cares how the world sees her and to demonstrate her belief that good actions don’t require public validation or applause. Any exploration of morality without God is incomplete, but the film’s focus on selfless sacrifice and love is a wholesome and positive message Christians can affirm.
