American Graffiti, la suite

..this sequel is actually pretty good, the different film style for each segment works (especially the hand held camera style for the viet nam segment)...I'd rather watch this than most of the crap lucas puts out these days ...milner's character was fleshed out a bit more here from the first film, and to good effect ...my only complaint is that each segment feels like it should be a year later than the date indicated on screen (eg....no one in 1966 San Francisco would have ANY idea who Jimi Hendrix was, and those student protests on campus were more common AFTER 1967)

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/

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.

"American Graffiti" while overpraised, is certainly one of the best films of the early 70s. It made tons of money and jump-started the careers of many stars. So, naturally they made a sequel--but why? At the end of the original it told us what happened to the main characters--there was absolutely no surprises here. That being said it's an OK movie.

The different types of screen sizes are nice--70mm for the race car sequences; small, hand-held for the Vietnam sequences; multiple screens for Candy Clark and the hippies and regular size screen for Howard and Williams "normal" couple. But, storywise, there was nothing new here and the different screen sizes can only hold you interest for a while. It was just an average movie--but a big let-down from the original. This was not a big hit when it was released--it disappeared quickly.

This is mostly a forgotten movie--as it should stay.

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 ****