Staying Alive (1983) - Drama, Music, Romance

Hohum Score

35

Bearable

It's five years later and Tony Manero's Saturday Night Fever is still burning. Now he's strutting toward his biggest challenge yet - succeeding as a dancer on the Broadway stage.

IMDB: 4.6
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Stars: John Travolta, Cynthia Rhodes
Length: 93 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 21 out of 112 found boring (18.75%)

One-line Reviews (79)

We all realized the movie is such a bore.

I found this to be very entertaining.

The love triangle plods on awhile (some scenes, like where Travolta asks his girlfriend if she'll take him back, are truly painful).

Cue predictable role reversal theme as she dumps him after a one-night stand.

This film had better dancing and a more enjoyable story line.

This sequel however was unwatchable.

Instead, it is merely so bad, so self-indulgent, and so amateurish, that it could quite easily be labelled a career-killer.

"Staying Alive" has neither, and it's about as boring as it gets.

Co-Written by Sylvester Stallone, it really has a Rocky feel to it, the music, the exciting finale, the way it's filmed all have that nice, Rocky feel.

It's mostly dull-acting in a very repetitive and monotonous storyline.

The whole thing looks and feels like an extended Days Of Our Lives episode, from the flat cinematography to the bland scene composition.

it's basically a generic 80's formulaic film.

Travolta looks good great dancing and music very entertaining.

This is not a Salvador Dali painting, but, it is far from a dull / standard film.

Worth watching for the end .

The parallels are endless and very contrived.

It's just schlock, tedious, harmless schlock.

She has little distinctive about her, and her attempts to bring the melodrama to life come off simply as an odd mix of pompous and pretentious with no positive results on the film's dramatic credibility, if there is any in the first place.

I know this movie didn't get the critical acclaim that Saturday Night Fever did, but I really enjoyed it.

It is not awful, just boring and tiresome to watch.

for me,the movie is not awful,and it is entertaining.

Everything is just too predictable.

Cynthia Rhodes is an excellent interpreter of her role, like also Finola Hughes so able to playing an intriguing charming woman.

Honestly it is hard to even make a connection between this hollow mess, and that passionate, textured coming of age drama that was the great "Saturday Night Fever.

Overall, the film fails to capture the audience, being far to predictable and lacking any real twist or memorable characters.

As i've said before, it isn't completely worthless, but it is boring, and it doesn't have the bravery of the original.

This movie is just plain boring and it wasn't even saved by that bizarre play at the end.

Dancing in an empty fabric – "Footloose" .

If you take the film for what it is, and are able to disconnect from what you know about Saturday Night Fever, then it's worth watching…once.

"Saturday Night Fever" is that cool, funny, exciting, talented kid down the block; "Staying Alive" is that kid's dull, quiet, clueless, ordinary younger brother.

The music is great and the dancing is entertaining.

See this self indulgent mess of a film, if only out of curiosity, or to see Johnny Travolta at his absolute physical peak.

In this underrated sequel, Travolta's character has more depth and humanity and stunning realism.

everything seems so contrived.

Did he even happened to watch SNF itself before altering the story into a Rambo-esque shaped Travolta dancing thru several boring dance, music-video-like montages and also making him be a 2-timer hustling with 2 gorgeous female dancers?

This movie is predictable, we get very little character interaction and it is all about dancing.

All this culminates in a Broadway show that is unwatchable.

Travolta, however, does his best with the uninspiring Stallone-written dialogue and therefore in my opinion, didn't deserve to get Razzie nominated for Worst Actor for the same role he got Oscar nominated for Best Actor 6 years earlier.

Eventually (and mercifully) the film ends, and you're virtually guaranteed to be left feeling shallow and empty-headed for having sat through it.

Stunning movie .

All the good supporting characters from the original are gone and the new ones are one-dimensional and boring.

It's so predictable it's a joke.

The actor playing the director was most convincing in his role otherwise the rest of the actors were bland.

While Frank Stallone's "Far From Over" kicks the film off with life, the things actually being depicted are an endless barrage of confusing dance moves including a lot of necks which seem to violently circulate in an attempt to pop off the heads of the humans they sit atop of, as well as some epileptic arm movements.

This very enjoyable and inspirational movie gets a well deserved 10 .

Other than that, it's nearly unwatchable.

I recall seeing this movie as a teen and very much enjoyed it then - and after recently re-watching the film I realized just how much I missed watching this movie!

Entertaining .

to me,that's pretty much what this movie is,one big cliché.

Well you have to watch, and let me tell you it's a riveting ride.

Stallone has Travolta looking the heat he ever looked, the movie movies at a good pace and is entertaining enough, while not getting close to the first movie.

) but all in all it was a good film and worth watching.

Not really inspired, but engaging performances from Travolta and Rhodes make it worthwhile.

This can be either gross or riveting.

I gave this film a 9 because it is a highly entertaining vintage dance movie starring two classically trained dancers (Rhodes & Hughes with the latter originating the role of Victoria from the hit show Cats, as principle dancer) who are an absolute JOY to watch!

In the first movie, the crispy crust was the genuinely worthy storyline--a young man uses music/dance to escape his dreary existence; and the zesty sauce was DISCO!!!!!!!

It's still entertaining, it has some cool dance scenes.

This hardly makes sense because the disco music and dance of SNF is what made it so iconic and a sequel which completely removes that notion would seem pointless from the get go.

Now as I mentioned earlier, this movie is sort of entertaining.

Even though it is a little predictable and the acting is not the greatest, i LOVE it and i think that it is worth watching.

STAYING ALIVE is a lacklustre follow-up to SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER, blighted with too many issues and problems to be a successful or entertaining picture.

We live lives of intense passion and longing and lust and devotion.

After intense deliberation, I can come to no other conclusion than "Disco Backlash".

All in all, hugely entertaining!

All the dance sequence are very entertaining too especially the final dance john travolta looks incredible in this film.

The finale dance concert is quite silly and self indulgent.

Shallow, empty-headed male dancer goes for shallow, empty-headed female dancer, jilting his shallow, empty-headed female dancer girlfriend.

John Travolta, Cynthia Rhodes and Finola Hughes are stunning dancers.

And i must admit, i found the dance sequences in this film to be much more exciting than in the original.

An annoying, pointless exercise in narcissism, executed so ineptly in every way imaginable, that it holds a secure and well-deserved place in history as one of the worst films ever made.

Real problem with the picture is that many of the scenes are short and sketchy, creating a disjointed feel that prevents the viewer from becoming fully immersed in the narrative.

can you say cliché?

You've got to notice the bound between Stallone's previous character (as a writer and actor) Rocky Balboa and this movie's Tony Manero, because both are dull kind ambitious Italian-Americans who have a coarse persona AND a brilliant talent that nearly no body wants to see.

Every cliché.

It is wonderfully intense and passionate.

Still, the movie is kind of enjoyable if you can suspend your belief system for a few hours.

We ALL know what it is like to dance on the edge of the void.

This is easily in the top 3 of the worst movies ever made.

Flat, pointless dialogue.