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!Written by
In the film, after Stephanie wins the contest, it goes on to show the steakout in the final scene. Originally, there were a few minutes dedicated to a scene in which Micheal(believed to be dead in his alter ego, by Stephanie) comes out on stage as Stephanie is exiting the stage, unbeknowst to her that he is the cool rider and he is alive. He attempts to ask her what's wrong and she storms past him and runs off crying, then it cuts to the stakeout. See more »
Depending on when you saw this film relative to when you saw the original "Grease," your viewpoints probably differ as to the quality of this movie.
I saw both within a month of each other at age 13. I hated the original and loved this one.
As I've gotten older, I've come to recognize that the original is a better piece of work, overall. The music from the original is better when taken as a whole. The supporting cast of the original has better players. The storyline doesn't seem as convoluted at times.
But there's something about this movie that holds on to you. It appeals much more to the age group pictured in the movie (i.e., junior-high and high-schoolers). The song "Cool Rider" and the scenes that accompany it in the movie rival anything in the original.
The dialog is better in places and the interplay between the male and female leads are better, I believe, than in the original. The original movie's pairing of Travolta and Newton-John gave us a dimwit trying to woo a goodie-two-shoes girl whose performance was oftentimes wooden and uncomfortable. This one gives us Caulfield and Pfeiffer, and the interplay between an intelligent, wise-beyond-his-years male lead and the "wild child" female lead.
Adrian Zmed's supporting performance as Johnny still cracks me up and is one of the few performances from this movie that still entertain me as an adult.
That's because outside of the performances of accomplished character actors Christopher McDonald, Eve Arden and Dody Goodman, the rest of this cast is just plain bad. Some of it is bad acting, some of it is miscasting and a lot of it is bad writing.
What we're left with today, 20-something years later, is a movie that made 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 more attention to detail in the prospective cast interview room.
14 of 20 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this