In "Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit", the mother of Lauryn Hill's character, disapproves her ambition to become a singer. Was it because she didn't think much of her daughter's skills, or because she saw no future in singing for a girl of her background? Or maybe because she had the same dream at her age and it reminds her of her own failure? In fact, the only reason of the disagreement I could see is because the writer wanted to create a mother-and- daughter conflict, for an obligatory emotional pay-off at the end, when she comes to see her daughter singing and realize she didn't have the right to interfere with her dreams.
There's nothing in the sequel's script that doesn't feel totally artificial. Every plot element is constructed as the upsetting set-up for an uplifting moment. Any person with a minimum of cinematic knowledge, let alone a critic, would see every scene coming a mile away. Starting with the very premise of the film: Sister Mary Clarence, back to a poor class and help students to I don't even need to go on, did you say 'inspirational teacher', 'rude and rebellious students', isn't that one of the oldest and most predictable plots ever? Hello, "To Sir with Love", "Blackboard Jungle", hell even "Rebellious Spirits" two years before with Michelle Pfeiffer should have canceled out any attempt to recycle the plot for the whole 90's decade, and we'd be waiting for the French "Chorus" all the more conventional, but at least better done.
The sin of "Sister Act 2" is not just to reuse a plot "as old as the hills" (quoting Roger Ebert) but to blatantly recycle the plot of the first film, which is to teach music to a group of outcasts in order to help them to achieve one goal. This time, it's more serious because they are all students from slums, but like the nuns, they all have the same great predispositions for singing, and naturally, the most rebellious of all (Lauryn Hill) starts defying Mary Clarence, and is therefore pushed off the group. Were we surprised that she had the most beautiful voice of all? No less or no more than the fact that all the students could sing, and the irony of their learning is that they can go away further with music rather than education.
But the film isn't intelligent enough to question these considerations, and in fact, it doesn't mean much to enumerate all the clichés recycled by the film. I think "Sister Act 2", which is not necessarily a bad movie, could have benefited for a better script, if not plot-wise but line- wise. I mean, the main problem of the film is simply is that it's not funny, not enough anyway. The first film wasn't hilarious but it was enjoyable nonetheless, in the sequel, it's like all the elements that made the original so warm, fun and enjoyable were killed off to make us care for characters that had no originality whatsoever. Nuns? Now that was original. Misfits and outcast students with the whole 'social commentary' undertone, sure, why not, but at least try to leverage the film with a few good laughs.
Even Whoopi Goldberg can hardly save the film, she doesn't even have this little spark, this wisecracking temper to provide the obligatory gags, the youngsters are so banal that they can't replace the nuns in our hearts, and the unforgettable trio of Mary Robert, Patrick and Lazarus is reduced to a simple comic relief level, which is quite frustrating. Which hooks our last hopes to music well, the film contains enough music to be enjoyable for the amateurs of R&B, gospels and maybe rap. Personally, I don't mind music unless it serves the film not the opposite, I'm still waiting for a story, for engaging characters, for surprises, none of that happens. And what's with the overuse of rap in the background, so loud and annoying, it seemed that all the teenagers were rapping when they were supposed to talk.
The whole film has a sort of video clip feeling, something that could have inspired "High School Musical" or "Glee", which is not saying much. It's a film made for the sake of it, fun and entertaining, but original, warm and funny, no? Predictable? Painfully and appallingly predictable, it belongs to the same category of useless sequels such as "Look Who's Talking Too" or "City Slickers 2", once the premise of the first film is assimilated, the only purpose of a sequel is to offer something new or something as funny, if not more. "Sister Act 2" failed in every category. It's not a disaster, it's not totally dull, and the teenagers play quite better than expected but are they aware that they're exploited as stereotypes of outcast students that can only go away with artistic expression.
I have always thought that art could be the perfect escapism and the best way to express one's anger and frustration, but it seems so simple, so automatic in "Sister Act 2" that what was warm and cute in the first became a dangerous misleading caricature in the second, the same that encourage wannabe singers to exploit their background and build a legend out of an inexistent career. Coming from a poor neighborhood, learning the hard way, becomes the obligatory marketing argument to create a sort of success story. See, there is nothing in "Sister Act 2", that is not archetypal.
There's nothing in the sequel's script that doesn't feel totally artificial. Every plot element is constructed as the upsetting set-up for an uplifting moment. Any person with a minimum of cinematic knowledge, let alone a critic, would see every scene coming a mile away. Starting with the very premise of the film: Sister Mary Clarence, back to a poor class and help students to I don't even need to go on, did you say 'inspirational teacher', 'rude and rebellious students', isn't that one of the oldest and most predictable plots ever? Hello, "To Sir with Love", "Blackboard Jungle", hell even "Rebellious Spirits" two years before with Michelle Pfeiffer should have canceled out any attempt to recycle the plot for the whole 90's decade, and we'd be waiting for the French "Chorus" all the more conventional, but at least better done.
The sin of "Sister Act 2" is not just to reuse a plot "as old as the hills" (quoting Roger Ebert) but to blatantly recycle the plot of the first film, which is to teach music to a group of outcasts in order to help them to achieve one goal. This time, it's more serious because they are all students from slums, but like the nuns, they all have the same great predispositions for singing, and naturally, the most rebellious of all (Lauryn Hill) starts defying Mary Clarence, and is therefore pushed off the group. Were we surprised that she had the most beautiful voice of all? No less or no more than the fact that all the students could sing, and the irony of their learning is that they can go away further with music rather than education.
But the film isn't intelligent enough to question these considerations, and in fact, it doesn't mean much to enumerate all the clichés recycled by the film. I think "Sister Act 2", which is not necessarily a bad movie, could have benefited for a better script, if not plot-wise but line- wise. I mean, the main problem of the film is simply is that it's not funny, not enough anyway. The first film wasn't hilarious but it was enjoyable nonetheless, in the sequel, it's like all the elements that made the original so warm, fun and enjoyable were killed off to make us care for characters that had no originality whatsoever. Nuns? Now that was original. Misfits and outcast students with the whole 'social commentary' undertone, sure, why not, but at least try to leverage the film with a few good laughs.
Even Whoopi Goldberg can hardly save the film, she doesn't even have this little spark, this wisecracking temper to provide the obligatory gags, the youngsters are so banal that they can't replace the nuns in our hearts, and the unforgettable trio of Mary Robert, Patrick and Lazarus is reduced to a simple comic relief level, which is quite frustrating. Which hooks our last hopes to music well, the film contains enough music to be enjoyable for the amateurs of R&B, gospels and maybe rap. Personally, I don't mind music unless it serves the film not the opposite, I'm still waiting for a story, for engaging characters, for surprises, none of that happens. And what's with the overuse of rap in the background, so loud and annoying, it seemed that all the teenagers were rapping when they were supposed to talk.
The whole film has a sort of video clip feeling, something that could have inspired "High School Musical" or "Glee", which is not saying much. It's a film made for the sake of it, fun and entertaining, but original, warm and funny, no? Predictable? Painfully and appallingly predictable, it belongs to the same category of useless sequels such as "Look Who's Talking Too" or "City Slickers 2", once the premise of the first film is assimilated, the only purpose of a sequel is to offer something new or something as funny, if not more. "Sister Act 2" failed in every category. It's not a disaster, it's not totally dull, and the teenagers play quite better than expected but are they aware that they're exploited as stereotypes of outcast students that can only go away with artistic expression.
I have always thought that art could be the perfect escapism and the best way to express one's anger and frustration, but it seems so simple, so automatic in "Sister Act 2" that what was warm and cute in the first became a dangerous misleading caricature in the second, the same that encourage wannabe singers to exploit their background and build a legend out of an inexistent career. Coming from a poor neighborhood, learning the hard way, becomes the obligatory marketing argument to create a sort of success story. See, there is nothing in "Sister Act 2", that is not archetypal.