I am surprised by this thread of responses to the film... I have seen it a few times, and I'm afraid that I 'love' it because of how awful it is... It could be the most cliche-ridden script that I've ever, ever seen put to the screen. And because of this, I adore the film... it is hysterical.
I don't make any kind of judgement of this as a sequel - obviously "Saturday Night Fever" was a great film, despite its quickly-fading fadness. Time has shown that people revisit that film all the time, and IT has withstood the difficulties of time by remaining a gritty and highly 'realist' film. Its sequel is just incredibly meaningless... I mean, this film, attempting to be 'realist' in the sense that the first film was, shows us some of the most ridiculous set-ups ever... Tony's girlfriend LEAVING THE STAGE while she's singing IN THE MIDDLE OF A SONG to talk to him?... and Stallone's brother then so happens to begin a guitar solo...? Tony drops a tray of drinks, and in the shot directly following, he's carrying a full tray of glasses again?... The girlfriend, again, singing at the club (by the way, she sings, acts, and still has time for a FT job AND meeting up with Tony at all hours) is actually crying as she painfully sings a painfully bad love song that JUST SO HAPPENS to describe her conflict with her boyfriend as he just so happens to stumble into the club??!?!?!... What I'm saying is that this film would have worked much better as 'fantasy' and not reality...
And, the dancing kinda sucks - let's face it... it's just not that good...
Add to all this: Since when does an entire Broadway show consist of nothing but dance routines? I didn't know that such entertainment was actually a viable medium in NYC...? I thought that musical plays were the rule, right? So what are we to believe here? It's a bit like 'Showgirls'... is it a woman's ambition to dance waist-up nude in Las Vegas for a bunch of senior citizens?... I'd think she'd want to be in films...
reply
share