Some people will say to watch this film as a separate entity to fully appreciate it. This would be fine if it was a stand-alone release, however this was released as a direct sequel to Grease (and the marketing matches that claim). It's an insult to the intelligence of the viewer to expect them to forget the previous film in order to enjoy this one; if you're going to branch out the Grease name, it needs to be done in a way that compliments (or, at least, satisfactorily exists in the same universe as) the original.
This film drastically cuts down on the star power and is a victim of what I affectionately call "The Final Destination Effect," wherein you have an astounding leading film with one or more sequels that proceed to do almost the exact same thing. This film is nothing more than Grease without the flawless soundtrack, Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta.
So, what happened?
Other reviewers call for second viewings of the film, which IS a fair request for viewers. Perhaps, in the very unlikely chance that a second viewing is desired, this review will be amended to make it more favourable. However, as it stands, it's simply an inferior film in every way.
It has twice the budget of the original, yet none of the fan favorite stars could be budgeted in. Sure, the money shows in the set design, costuming, music and post-production but, again, as a sequel to the incredible Grease, it's totally fair to demand more in the quality department. Had this been released with its own title away from its predecessor, it would've been viewed as a "knockoff Grease" in the same way a film like The Burning is a poor man's Friday the 13th... but that film is endlessly entertaining despite this fact.
This is what it boils down to, ultimately: sure, you could jam out to and enjoy such hits as "Back to School" or "Cool Rider," but the question remains the same: Why WOULD you when you could have "Summer Nights," "Greased Lightning" and "You're the One That I Want?"
Given that this film is simply a different slab of flesh on the same skeleton of the original, it's difficult to see where this film has relevance outside of offering the edgier people of society an inferior sequel to dote on as their "favorite" simply because preference of the original is too mainstream for them.
I ask again, and will until the end of time: what went wrong? This could've been a really fantastic film. They chose, instead, to copy the original and it had a detrimental effect, both on quality and at the box office.
This film drastically cuts down on the star power and is a victim of what I affectionately call "The Final Destination Effect," wherein you have an astounding leading film with one or more sequels that proceed to do almost the exact same thing. This film is nothing more than Grease without the flawless soundtrack, Olivia Newton-John and John Travolta.
So, what happened?
Other reviewers call for second viewings of the film, which IS a fair request for viewers. Perhaps, in the very unlikely chance that a second viewing is desired, this review will be amended to make it more favourable. However, as it stands, it's simply an inferior film in every way.
It has twice the budget of the original, yet none of the fan favorite stars could be budgeted in. Sure, the money shows in the set design, costuming, music and post-production but, again, as a sequel to the incredible Grease, it's totally fair to demand more in the quality department. Had this been released with its own title away from its predecessor, it would've been viewed as a "knockoff Grease" in the same way a film like The Burning is a poor man's Friday the 13th... but that film is endlessly entertaining despite this fact.
This is what it boils down to, ultimately: sure, you could jam out to and enjoy such hits as "Back to School" or "Cool Rider," but the question remains the same: Why WOULD you when you could have "Summer Nights," "Greased Lightning" and "You're the One That I Want?"
Given that this film is simply a different slab of flesh on the same skeleton of the original, it's difficult to see where this film has relevance outside of offering the edgier people of society an inferior sequel to dote on as their "favorite" simply because preference of the original is too mainstream for them.
I ask again, and will until the end of time: what went wrong? This could've been a really fantastic film. They chose, instead, to copy the original and it had a detrimental effect, both on quality and at the box office.