Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Of course it is a formula. It was 1993, remember 1993. It's Andy Hardy dates Sister Mary Clarence with James Coburn as a villain. And who cares? This film helps people remember how much fun Whoopi Goldberg could be and there are some wonderful music numbers that will get you moving and feeling good. Then there is possibly the best credit run ever at the film's conclusion. Plus you look at the young cast and think isn't that Jennifer Love Hewitt or Lauryn Hill? Older audiences will recognize Barnard Hughes, Mary Wickes, Michael Jeter, and Dame Maggie Smith the Dowager Countess of Grantham.There is nothing bad about just admitting you were entertained and felt good as the credits roll on. I wish Whoopi had stayed with film and Broadway. To this day I remember her one woman show on Broadway which was later broadcast as an HBO special. What a talented woman. I know it's PC to say "person" or "actor," but I don't care; Whoopi Goldberg is a great entertainer and I can't understand why we can't accept and acknowledge she is a woman. Her performances over the years have made me cry and laugh such that I thought I would burst.Know what, just go to Apple or Amazon, rent the movie. Sit back with some popcorn and prepare to laugh and clap and maybe even dance to the signing. I bet you hit IMDb to see what else Whoopi was in that you missed.

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.

Did the original Sister Act need a sequel? Probably not but the success of the first one meant that the inevitable sequel was made in 1993.And to the credit of everyone involved it's not that bad and proves and enjoyable way to spend 90 minutes. While the story isn't really that strong and the first 30 minutes are a little manic as the director tries to re-establish the characters, the story and the reason for Goldberg going back in disguise (because, let's face it, that's what audiences want to see.And so begins a film that has some good moments of comedy and music. It's not as good as the first but then again most sequels aren't. The main thing is that this film doesn't tarnish the reputation of the first and shows again that nuns can be funny.

I have to admit I truly enjoyed the original Sister Act. Perhaps it is my religious upbringing, but the sight of the nuns being coached by Whoopi Goldberg to integrate do-wop and Motown into their choir music never fails to tickle my funny bone. So it was with great pleasure that I looked forward to the sequel. Unfortunately, there is nary a laugh to be found. The original mined the material of watching the unlikely combination of a sassy Las Vegas wannabe singer inspire the zany cloistered nuns to irreverence. The sequel brings Goldberg back to the fold in a highly unlikely development and in place of the singing nuns we get...singing teens in another stale 'let's put on a show and save the day' scenario. Wow! How original and clever! This story was threadbare in 1930 and there is nothing funny about the kids in question. In fact, they are about as funny as an amputation. Overlooking the fact that there is literally no credible reason for the Goldberg character to leave behind being a Las Vegas headliner to help at a floundering inner city school, one could easily see some comedy being mined from Goldberg tackling the disrespectful teens. Instead, she plays straight man to a gaggle of unfunny kids. There are no classic Whoopi moments and she looks terribly bored. Also, why is she required to go "undercover" to teach these kids and keep her real identity from the male members of the teaching staff? It makes no sense. Nor does the fact that the world in this film seems to have undergone collective amnesia. Despite her character being on the cover of magazines and having entertained the pope in a media event, not only do none of the teens recognize her, but neither do any of the adults nor the male contingencies of the teaching staff. The film does come briefly to life when the nuns from the first film do a cameo number, but the main returnees such as Maggie Smith (I hope she was paid well), Kathy Najimy and Wendy Makkena are irrelevant. Even worse, when the lame-brained singing competition caps the film, you know the show is in trouble when ALL of the competitors seem better than the group you are supposed to be rooting for to win. A total mess akin to having dental surgery without Novacaine.