Reviewed by (firstname.lastname@example.org)Vote: 8/10/10
I dont understand why this movie is being slammed so much. The first Greaseis a classic and its always impossible to follow a classic with an equalsequel. I happened to enjoy this sequel better than the original. I thoughtit was funnier and I enjoyed the music in this movie better than the first.Especially the "Reproduction"scene...you can't watch that and not agreethatthat is one funny part of the movie. I also thought Maxwell Caulfield wasGORGEOUS as Michael. I overall give this movie 7/10.
Reviewed byLozbee2000 (Lozbee2000@hotmail.com)Vote: 7/10/10
This film to me is not that bad, most the people who have seen it compareitto the original. What I reckon is that if this was just a film and not asequel to Grease it would probably be appreciated more.
In my opinion I like Grease 2 better, I actually found Grease to be quiteboring, but hey that's just me. In Grease 2 I like the songs better and theguys are much more better looking than the first one.
Overall this movie for me is quite entertaining and I like it, and Icertainly do not compare it to the first one as it is a whole new differentmovie and storyline.
So if you haven't seen Grease 2 before because people say it's crap andthatit's a waste of time, at least give it a chance and watch it, it mightsurprise you.
Reviewed byConStar8788Vote: 7/10/10
Depending on when you saw this film relative to when you saw theoriginal "Grease," your viewpoints probably differ as to the quality ofthis movie.
I saw both within a month of each other at age 13. I hated the originaland loved this one.
As I've gotten older, I've come to recognize that the original is abetter piece of work, overall. The music from the original is betterwhen taken as a whole. The supporting cast of the original has betterplayers. The storyline doesn't seem as convoluted at times.
But there's something about this movie that holds on to you. It appealsmuch more to the age group pictured in the movie (i.e., junior-high andhigh-schoolers). The song "Cool Rider" and the scenes that accompany itin the movie rival anything in the original.
The dialog is better in places and the interplay between the male andfemale leads are better, I believe, than in the original. The originalmovie's pairing of Travolta and Newton-John gave us a dimwit trying towoo a goodie-two-shoes girl whose performance was oftentimes wooden anduncomfortable. This one gives us Caulfield and Pfeiffer, and theinterplay between an intelligent, wise-beyond-his-years male lead andthe "wild child" female lead.
Adrian Zmed's supporting performance as Johnny still cracks me up andis one of the few performances from this movie that still entertain meas an adult.
That's because outside of the performances of accomplished characteractors Christopher McDonald, Eve Arden and Dody Goodman, the rest ofthis cast is just plain bad. Some of it is bad acting, some of it ismiscasting and a lot of it is bad writing.
What we're left with today, 20-something years later, is a movie thatmade a really good attempt to build on the original, but in the end,was the soufflé that fell. It's still better than most want to admit,but it could have stood a couple of rewrites and a little moreattention to detail in the prospective cast interview room.
Return to rockin' Rydell High for a whole new term! It's 1961, two years after the original Grease gang graduated, and there's a new crop of seniors - and new members of the coolest cliques on campus, the Pink Ladies and T-Birds. Michael Carrington is the new kid in school - but he's been branded a brainiac. Can he fix up an old motorcycle, don a leather jacket, avoid a rumble with the leader of the T-Birds, and win the heart of Pink Lady Stephanie Zinone? He's surely going to try!