dwissba What is it that people think are so funny about nuns? I don't care who is playing the part and why nuns can't in my view be seen as funny. Now ina serious drama like Doubt I can see but not a comedy. Whoopi Goldberg,although a good actress and is funny, is dull in this film as a woman who is again asked to don the nun's drab to teach choir to a bunch ofmis-fit run of the mill clichéd kids at a Catholic school. Clichéd I mean we have seen these types of characters before in other films. For example, The gifted student who doubts himself, the shy kid who can really sign, the white kid who acts like he from the hood, the parent who does not want his/her kid TO perform till they arrive late and see their child performing and change their mind and the run down old school they all belong too.....YAWN!! Oh yeah and the old run down school was also about to be closed till it was saved. Sound familiar?

martin_adu Films are like food. And obviously, people have their tastes and expectations. I watched Sister Act One and it was great, and was funny as much as it kept you at the edge of your sit. However, Sister Act 2 is a different kettle of fish, in spite of the return of a few known characters. I can seriously relate to it, and so can people working with kinds, teens and 'tweens' , in schools, inner city urban situations. I like a movie where people of no hope end up with hope. Found myself wipe off a few tears at the end. And in life almost imitating art. I was asked to help out as choir director for a bunch of kids and teens that were being taken care off by our local Salvation Army. They, you guess it decided to form a choir. They were kids from different,sometimes dysfunctional and even broken homes, with a few suffering from ADHD ! Not to bore you, the same group has become much sought after, sung in festivals, won an award, been a TV a couple of times and will be traveling outside the country in a few month's time! That's why I love to watch this movie. Fun and hope.

ianlouisiana Yes of course it's totally unbelievable - it's a sequel to a movie that was totally unbelievable in the first place.Does anyone really expect "Sister Act 2 - Back in the habit" to be any more than hack work? Hastily cobbled together to cash in on the success of "Sister Act" it presents the Hollywood Cliché afficcianadoes with a positive cornucopia. How could you not enjoy a movie that presents squeaky clean well - dressed multi - talented "Ghetto Kids" from every possible racial group pretending to walk the walk and talk the talk whilst meekly submitting to Music Lessons in an inner - city High School run by the Catholic Church with beaming tolerance?They perform an emasculated version of rap after doing a ludicrously polite "Dozens" routine that would have been laughed out of The Projects in any big city in the U.S. Just naturally the re - activated Sister Mary Clarence wins them over and blends them into a choir fit to enter the All - State Choir Competition (only in America - one hopes). Oh,and incidentally,the school is threatened with closure just to add to your pleasure. Just how it resolves itself will surprise only those who can count the number of movies they have seen on one hand. So you can safely dismiss it then?Well,actually ......no.Because "Sister Act 2 - Back in the habit" has some glorious musical moments."His eye is on the sparrow" is exquisitely sung,"Ode to Joy" the winnning entry in the competition (oops! did I let something slip?)is accompanied by a pianist using some fantastic chord substitutions and is performed with the exhausting energy only the young and enthusisastic can summon up. So enjoy it for what it is - don't knock it for what it isn't - please.

mnpollio 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.