Staying Alive - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Staying Alive Reviews

Page 1 of 2
June 24, 2006
All could be forgiven if it weren't for the soulless overall slickness.
October 23, 2004
A slick, commercial cinematic jukebox, a series of self-contained song-and-dance sequences that could be cut apart and played forever on MTV -- which is probably what will happen.
Full Review | Original Score: 1/4
July 24, 2014
Not quite a career low for John Travolta -- Two of a Kind was still to come -- but one he nevertheless would probably love to forget.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/5
August 16, 2003
So horrific are the musical sequences in this movie that you'll swear you were having nightmares directed by Satan himself.
Read More | Original Score: 29/100
May 27, 2003
More like staying dead...a monotonous and unnecessary sequel that has all the grace and flow of a greased hog on rollerskates
| Original Score: 2/5
October 24, 2008
The bottom line is that Staying Alive is nowhere as good as its 1977 predecessor, Saturday Night Fever.
September 27, 2003
| Original Score: 2/5
July 24, 2014
As always Travolta is urban gorgeous and very charming. The rest of the film is neither.
February 20, 2004
Read More | Original Score: 1/5
October 25, 2007
If not quite one of the worst sequels ever made, it's near the top of the list of all-time most disappointing sequels. Writer-director Stallone stupidly attempts to turn Tony Manero into a dancing Rocky.
Read More | Original Score: 2/10
July 29, 2005
Read More | Original Score: 1/5
October 15, 2004
Was this sequel really necessary? Nope.
Read More | Original Score: 2/5
July 18, 2003
1.5
| Original Score: 1/5
March 25, 2003
The words 'directed by Sylvester Stallone' say it all.
| Original Score: 1/5
August 21, 2003
| Original Score: 0/5
November 13, 2003
Saturday Night Fever through the eyes of Stallone.
| Original Score: 2/5
April 17, 2001
This film constantly falls flat on its face.
Full Review | Original Score: 2/5
July 24, 2014
[Sylvester Stallone] pours lots of energy but little intelligence into scads of short, sweaty scenes more suited to the rhythms of cable-TV ''rock video'' than to the wide screen.
August 30, 2004
A sequel with no understanding of what made its predecessor work.
Read More | Original Score: 1.5/5
December 28, 2004
| Original Score: 1/5
Page 1 of 2