American Graffiti, la suite

First off, you can not expect a sequel to excel. We get lucky sometimes but usually they are either totally lame or they fall into some sort of formula hellhole. This film, as many many reviewers have pointed out, does have flaws. Most films do. It is not that different in structure from the original either, following different story lines with different characters, albeit in different years rather than in the same night. The Vietnam sequences with Terry the Toad and Little Joe from the Pharohs gang are the best part of the movie. They could almost have made a single full-length sequel following that story line. A lot of reviewers liked the Milner sequences more than the Debbie sequences. I sort of go the other way around. I thought the Milner storyline was weak and there just wasn't much there. Maybe the hippie sequences were more familiar to me, but I related to that and thought most of it was hilarious. They could have dropped the entire other sequence as well ... it just labored to tell their story against a backdrop that was much bigger than they were.

Also liked the cameo by Falfa, Harrison Ford.

Anyway, maybe someone will come back and make the rest of the Terry-the-Toad in Vietnam story. Feel the same way about D-Day "whereabouts unknown" in Animal House. There's a movie there waiting to be told.

I'm guessing a lot of folks that have complained about the split screen in MAG kid of missed yet another bit of cleverness that seemed to fly over the heads of a lot of viewers.

Each section (year) is shot in a different manner to make a secondary visual comment. The Vietnam stuff is all shot on 16mm, hand-held and grainy as hell to simulate the stuff we were watching on the nightly news back then.

Milner's sequences are shot in super widescreen, Debbie's stuff is split screen, sped up, slowed down - your basic "statement" crap from the late 60's and Ron Howard's happy home life is shot with the over-lit, over-tailored feel of a "mainstream" comedy ala Doris Day/Bob Hope circa 1965.

Personally, I found it amusing.

This movie is completely different from its 1973, George Lucas directed, predecessor "American Graffiti". "American Graffiti" was about the celebration of an age and the innocence of youth and it above all was a fun movie to watch. Even though "More American Graffiti" is more comedy like than its predecessor, it's not halve as fun. This is because the movie handles too many serious subjects that were going on in the late '60's in a too light- and simple way.

It's good to see that the movie manages to bring back almost every actor from the first "American Graffiti" movie. Some in big, others in small cameo appearances such as Harrison Ford and Mackenzie Phillips. Just like "American Graffiti" the movie also features some then still unknown actors who are now big stars, such as Scott Glenn and Delroy Lindo. So really nothing wrong with the casting again. I wish I could say the same about the rest of the movie.

Basically "American Graffiti" wasn't a movie that needed a sequel, so in that regard, this movie already is a redundant and pointless one. But also the movie on its own adds very little. It's unclear if they movie wanted to make a statement or just wanted to entertain.

The movie handles some very serious and heavy subjects that were going on in the late '60's. Such as the Vietnam war, its anti-Vietnam war college protests, hippies, etcetera. It uses a comical approach of all these subject, that feels totally out of place and almost works offensive, especially the Vietnam and anti-war protest sequences.

The movie isn't told in chronological order, some story lines even occur years apart from the other. It makes the movie often more confusing and weak, than strong and gripping. The movie once more follows many different characters, this time in many different settings. It makes the movie feel disjointed, also since every plot line features its own cinematic style and differs from the other.

This movie really raises the question; why? Why is it so different from the first movie, why did most of the actors ever agreed to be in this? Why didn't Lucas directed this one? Why is it more comedy like- but are the subjects so heavy and serious? Why was this movie even made?

Neverhtheless as a stand-alone movie, it's still one that amuses enough. I mean I wasn't bored while watching it and some of its comedy still worked out fine. Also the great actors are a reason why this movie still remains a watchable enough one.

So it's watchable but still a redundant and pointless movie and therefor really not a recommendable one.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The final frames of the original "American Graffiti" provide one-line summaries of the fates of the film's four central male characters. While somewhat sexist in omitting the female characters, the ending of the original film provided all the information about those people that even the most ardent fan of the movie would want. However, someone felt that mega-bucks could be made by detailing the dreary lives of these characters after the original film ended. Bad move. Making an insurance salesman and his wife, a nerdy private in Vietnam, a drag race driver, and a overgrown hippie into interesting characters in interesting situations was far beyond the talents of those who wrote this nearly unwatchable movie. While most of the original cast is back, with only Richard Dreyfuss having the good sense to stay away, "More American Graffiti" is a mess of silly situations that involve protests, car races, country singers, and the Vietnam war. The use of split screens, once thought innovative and daring, is overused here to the point of distraction and adds confusion to the already confused goings one. This is a sequel that demonstrates nearly everything that can go wrong with a sequel. Perhaps it should be screened in film schools as a lesson. Even the use of period music, which was a delight in the original, is poorly done here. If you want more "American Graffiti," see the original twice.

It's tempting to say--as I'm sure several critics did--that "More is Less" when it comes to the "American Graffiti" sequel. Executive producer George Lucas' first failure begins with one early strike: the characters' fates were revealed at the end of the 1973 hit, so we are predisposed to expect a downer. Written and directed by B. W. L. Norton, the film has a novel concept that unfortunately didn't connect with audiences: each character's story takes place on a different New Year's Eve, and then all the episodes are intercut in a timeline. Paul Le Mat is racing cars (and flirting with a pretty Swede); Charles Martin Smith is a soldier in Vietnam plotting his escape; Candy Clark and Mackenzie Phillips have become San Francisco hippies; and Ron Howard and Cindy Williams are battling marrieds with bratty kids (Richard Dreyfuss sat this one out, though Harrison Ford has a sneaky cameo as a cop). Each installment has been filmed in a unique style tailored to the material, with Smith's Vietnam episode the most vividly captured (and the idea of him comically trying to blow off his own arm in order to get back home says more about the war than most antiwar movies do in two hours). The picture's stylistic attributes dazzle for a while before becoming a colorful distraction, with the multi-image cinematography failing to mask the fact that Norton's screenplay is exceptionally thin. He gets some beautiful moments on film, aided by terrific period music on the soundtrack; however, Norton isn't very adept with his actors, most of whom overplay (Howard and Williams are the biggest offenders). There's a hint of melancholy sweetness at the end of Clark's segment (featuring a likably benign Scott Glenn)--also a bit of it in Le Mat's story--but "More" is indeed Less...there's just no way around that. ** from ****