As somebody who loved the first half of the Wicked film even more than the Broadway play, I had high hopes for Wicked: For Good. For some reason, I didn't see it in theaters, so I was looking forward to it once it came home to streaming. I watched it, since it's now available on my Netflix subscription, and whoa. This second half is ROUGH. Now, I heard mixed things about Part 2. For example, in our review, we gave it a positive score, but I had also heard from others that it was pretty bad. Now that I’ve watched it, I definitely lean more toward the latter. Here's why. (Image credit: Universal Pictures)The New Songs Aren't Very MemorableIf Wicked the stage play is known for anything, it's its music. “Popular,” “The Wizard and I,” “I'm Not That Girl,” and “Defying Gravity” are all showstopping numbers and were super effective in Part One of the film. However, Act 2 of the play really doesn't have any great songs to write home about. “Thank Goodness”? “Wonderful”? “The Wicked Witch of the East”? Honestly, if you didn't play them for me, I'd have no idea what you’re talking about, and Wicked: For Good has this exact same problem. In fact, this film added two new songs in “No Place Like Home,” performed by Cynthia Erivo, and “The Girl in the Bubble,” performed by Ariana Grande. And, let me tell you. They feel like filler to the nth degree, and aren’t memorable at all. This is a big problem since the music is such a major part of Wicked, and I was hoping that this adaptation could at least add some good tunes to an already lackluster second half, but alas, it wasn’t meant to be. (Image credit: Universal Pictures)The Story Is Stretched Out And It Feels ItWicked, as a whole, is about two and a half hours for the stage production. That’s about 150 minutes WITHOUT the 15-minute intermission. So, in theory, both acts of Wicked could have been one movie. I just recently watched Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey, and that’s 173 minutes (though some people struggle with it being that long). However, Part One of Wicked is 165 minutes, and Wicked: For Good is 137 minutes. Added together, that’s 302 minutes, which roughly comes to FIVE HOURS, and like, WHY? Why does Wicked, as a whole, have to be five hours? I will say this: for Part One, it didn’t feel like 165 minutes since it was engaging throughout, but Wicked: For Good? This movie feels way too long. The basic story beats - People hunting Elphaba, Boq turning into the Tin Man, Fiyero falling for Elphaba, and then getting turned into the Scarecrow - are all here, but there’s additional stuff, too, with none of it feeling necessary. It just drags on, and on, and on. In other words, it feels like such a waste of time. (Image credit: Universal Pictures)Overall, I Knew The Second Half Of Wicked Is Not As Good As The First, But This Was Way Worse Than I ExpectedNow, I knew going into this that the director, Jon M. Chu, had a hard (yellow brick) road ahead of him since the Broadway play’s second act pales in comparison to Act 1, but I didn’t know it would be this rough. It almost makes me wonder what the critics were talking about when they said audiences were “audibly sobbing” for this Part II, as it doesn’t really succeed on any level. It kind of reminds me of the Hobbit movies, because when comparing them to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the difference is night and day. The Lord of the Rings trilogy felt like the perfect length, while The Hobbit movies felt stretched out and mostly unnecessary, and that’s what we have here with Wicked: For Good. It honestly should have been one movie, and what we’re left with is a pretty abysmal Part 2. So, what do you think? Did you dislike Wicked: For Good as much as I did? I’d love to hear your thoughts.