Reviews

I remember this series too, and I agree, I'd love to see it repeated. What I remember most of all about "Head Over Heels" was the fact the final episode ended in a cliff-hanger when the chubby girl that never seemed to have much luck with "boys" confided in a friend that she was pregnant. This was supposed to lead into the second series (ITV actually commissioned another series), but just before shooting was about to begin on season two, Carlton TV who made the show pulled the plug on it at the eleventh hour. I remember reading an interview with one of the show's stars some time afterwards and she said none of the cast and crew were given a reason as to why the show was axed, but rumours suggest that ITV were ploughing a lot of it's drama budget into "Soldier, Soldier" which would become one of that channel's biggest hits of the 90s.

The theme song, also entitled "Head Over Heels" was sung by Nick Haverson and it was actually released as a single (which I bought…..and the soundtrack album too!). I think that's what most people remember most of all about the show because it fitted so well into the 50s nostalgia atmosphere. The song was also used as part of the show when Nick Haverson's character ("Daniel Dunn") sung it during the last episode to win a talent contest.

Although I haven't seen it myself, I have heard it's been repeated several times since its original 1993 airing. Some regional ITV stations have shown "Head Over Heels" in weekend afternoon time slots, and some have shown it in the early hours of the morning. When ITV Granada had its "Granada Plus" channel on SKY Television, the show was repeated on that at least once. So there's hope it might be repeated again. The entire series was also available on video cassette about a year after the series ended, but the title has since been deleted. I don't think it's available on DVD.

There's nothing much one can add to the plaudits already reaped by the highest grossing musical in cinematic history because "Grease" truly is a remarkable movie. The way it encapsulates a "feel good" aura to enthral the audience isn't something that happens very often, especially when the movie offers only a very simplistic script acted out by (back then) relatively unknown performers. In spite of the fact the movie version is much tamer than the original stage adaptation (something that was slightly more violent and superfluous with it's sexual innuendos - both of which have been lost in future stage productions since the release of the movie), "Grease" has all the right ingredients to justify the phenomenal success it's achieved over the years.

The movie's main plot is the basic "boy meets girl/boy loses girl/boy tries to change to win girl back" tale - a storyline that's not exactly anomalous to Hollywood - nonetheless, it's the kind of plot that most can relate to because we've all been in Danny or Sandy's situation one time or another during our lives. And it's ingredients such as that which make this movie 'believable'. Moreover, "Grease" epitomises the teenage angst experienced by the characters so well (the sub-plots of expressing teenage lust, being socially accepted and fears of making the transition into adulthood are prime examples of why the story of "Grease" is as relevant today as it was in the 50s when it was set, and in the 70s when it was written.)

Be that as it may, "Grease" wasn't meant to be a thought-provoking movie, and the emphasis is most definitely the on fun factor offered. It is comedic more than anything else, but there are several tender moments portrayed mainly through the songs, "Hopelessly Devoted To You", "Sandy" and "There Are Worse Things I Can Do" which are as well-remembered as any of the goofiness displayed by the movie's misfits.

In the face of the fact a very simple script doesn't necessarily make a great movie, I'm sure there would be no legacy attached to "Grease" if it wasn't for the songs included on the soundtrack. Those were the catalyst to combine all the essential ingredients in the script to really make "Grease" shine. Upon reflection, it's quite bemusing that a movie (or story) set in the 50s didn't have more quintessential rock n' roll songs featured (sans the contributions from the 50s revivalists, 'Sha-Na-Na", of course). But the ones used have quite rightly become 'sing-a-long' classics nevertheless. From the disco-influenced title track, the feel-good "Summer Nights" and "You're The One That I Want", and the high-energy "Greased Lightning" (not to mention the ballads that reflected the movie's more tender moments), what you have is a soundtrack that enraptures feelings that not even the best script ever written could garner. So praise for the success of this movie should surely also be credited to Jim Jacobs, Warren Casey, John Farrar, Louis St. Louis and Barry Gibb for their brilliant musical offerings.

The on-screen chemistry between John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John is complimented perfectly by the strong supporting actors, Jeff Conaway (Kenickie) and Stockard Channing (Rizzo) - two characters who, in my opinion, could've easily made this a great movie without the insertion of the Danny & Sandy characters. However, I'm not so sure that, in reality, the "T Birds" who were supposed to epitomise all things "cool" would've allowed Doody, Sonny & Putzie to join their gang, but it did explain the unwritten "T-Bird" code that their members had to date the "Pink Ladies" (which, in turn, explained the inclusion of the lesser members of the girl gang). However, that's one flaw to be easily overlooked in a movie that's not supposed to be taken seriously, I guess. Saying that, what can't be overlooked is the fact some of the actors playing 'teenagers' looked too old to be doing so. Michael Tucci (Sonny) and Annette Charles (Cha-Cha) appeared to look way beyond their teenage years.

The rest of the supporting cast played their roles ever so well; from the comedic performances of screen veterans like Eve Arden (Principal McGee), Sid Caesar (Couch Calhoun), Dody Goodman (Blanche), Alice Ghostley (Mrs Murdock) and Edd Byrnes (Vince Fontaine); the menacing leader of the rival Scorpions gang, Leo (the late Dennis C Stewart); the obnoxious and not-so-innocent Patty Simcox (Susan Buckner); the ultimate 'high school jock' - and for a while, Sandy's love interest, Tom Chishum (Lorenzo Lamas); the one guy that epitomised the term 'geek', Eugene (Eddie Deezen); and Barry Pearl, Michael Tucci, Kelly Ward (the "T-Birds") and Didi Conn, Jamie Donelly and Dinah Manoff (The "Pink Ladies").

"Grease" isn't above criticism though, and there were several things that could've either been elaborated on more or removed to make the story better. I'd have liked to have seen how Danny & Sandy met (I felt his was too rushed at the beginning of the movie); the "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"-inspired ending removed the movie's credibility; the "dream sequence" with Frenchy and the Teen Angel was just too boring; and the 'Thunder Road' scene would've been more plausible if the director hadn't tried to copy a scene from "Rebel Without A Cause". Still, those are all minor gripes in an otherwise brilliant movie.

All in all, if you haven't seen the movie - and despite my spoilers, the outcome of "Grease" is as predictable as night following day - all I can say is I recommend you to do so. Watch it, and understand why this movie has achieved so much success and positive reviews over the years. There's also "Grease 2", but please, watch the sequel with caution as it's nothing…….let me say that again…..it's nothing like the original.

When you take into consideration that the original "Grease" movie was such a phenomenal success with movie-going audiences the world over, is it any surprise that the sequel to one of the highest grossing musicals in cinematic history, fell short of matching or -heaven forbid- even surpassing the achievement of it's predecessor? Of course it wasn't a surprise, and I'm sure that upon it's general release, there were one or two executives at Paramount Pictures that wished they hadn't even bothered making the movie in the first place - and the reason for that being is simply: some movies should be left to bask in their own glory without being bastardised and diluted with one or more sequels. "Grease 2" is one such example.

Whether you want to compare "Grease 2" with the original or take an unbiased view and appraise it on it's own, nothing can hide the fact this really is a terrible movie. So where did "Grease 2" go wrong? For one, the entire movie script is more or less a rehash of the original (albeit in some instances, the male/female roles have been reversed to disassociate this from being a straight remake). Take the main love angles in both movies for example: in the first movie, you had the cool kid (Travolta) falling for the "square" new-kid-in-town girl (Newton-John), and in the sequel, it's the same, but the roles are gender reversed. Originality seemed lost on the script-writers, and this was further evident during the whole movie, especially during the end-of-school-year carnival where the 'square' kid (Michael) is finally accepted - a scene that's blatantly ripped off from the original "Grease".

The original "Grease" cast never won awards for their acting abilities, but compared to those relative unknowns (back in 1982) who secured the leading roles in the sequel, they make John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John seem like Oscar winners because their acting abilities ranged from 'acceptable' to 'dire', with the latter description perfectly summing up the majority of the cast of "Grease 2". Moreover, the injection of old, supporting actors from the first movie (Frenchy and Eugene especially) seemed questionable too. Granted, "teachers" were understandable returnees, but Frenchy returning to Rydell High two years after she left to supposedly enter 'beauty school' (and dropped out almost immediately as her character explained in the first movie) and, like the Eugene character, had already graduated. Why were they even in the movie, other than to make an association between the two films? To give the casting people credit, at least for the second movie they hired actors who, at least, looked like teenagers which couldn't be said about the first "Grease".

Whereas the soundtrack is what the original will be best remembered for, the songs used in "Grease 2" were a lot to be desired. With the exception of the terrific opening number ("Back To School Again" performed by the Four Tops) and "Who's That Guy?" (with the former being the best song from both movies IMO), the quality of the songs matched the acting ability on show. "Prowlin'", "Do It For Our Country" and "Reproduction" were all appalling and the worst on offer; "Cool Rider" and the sexual innuendo laced, "Score Tonight" were passable as songs (even if the accompanying dance scenes were so bad, they were actually hilarious - see Ms Pfeiffer strut to "Cool Rider" and you'll see what I mean); "Charades" is actually a lovely ballad, or it would've been if someone other than Mr Caulfield had sung it, yet it was quite 'dark' and featured in something of a noir-ish scene that didn't really belong in the movie. The rest of this rather short soundtrack is made up with what can only be described as uninteresting fillers.

As for the characters themselves, it seems the 'Pink Ladies' have become the most dominant gang at Rydell High because those characters are the most strongest, especially the roles of Stephanie (Michelle Pfeiffer) and Paulette (Lorna Luft). Despite the fact that the 'T-Birds' epitomised everything "cool" in the original, they seem to have turned into a group of geeks in this movie. Adrian Zmed ("Johnny") and Christopher McDonald ("Goose") are certainly no John Travolta and Jeff Conaway, neither were their characters. Didi Conn reprised the exact same role she had in the first movie as Frenchy, someone present in the movie to introduce the "new kid" to the ways of the school and what it took to be 'cool'. Unfortunately, in "Grease 2", we'd seen it all before and her character seemed 'tired'. To their credit, Michelle Pfeiffer and Maxwell Caulfield played their characters well, and unlike the majority of the cast, they did seem 'believable'. Pfeiffer, in the role of the street smart, hard-as-nails head of the 'Pink Ladies' and Caulfield, the stereotypical upper class British teenager (of 1961) did have something of an on-screen chemistry, but were sadly let down by their supporting actors.

It really is unfair to compare this movie with the original, but it is a sequel after all - a movie with more than just a few connections to the first, so it's understandable that's the view people will have. In fact, there's no comparison at all. The original was great…. this movie isn't. It really is as simple as that.