brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Better Late Then Never

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

This really is one of the strangest sequel's I've ever seen. Typically the only reason to ever have a sequel, especially one that's been hashed up retroactively as opposed to say, Lord Of The Rings, where you have three separate preconceived parts, is to recapture the magic of the original film. If you can't do that, the sequel is almost COMPLETELY redundant, in most cases. This speaks a lot to the fact that this film was quite widely canned at the time of its release. What it does, is it tries to cram four separate storylines and four separate timelines into one film, all taking place separately and far apart from each other. As such, the multiple plotlines are not as tight; there's no codependency between them, and the film fails to recapture the basic feel and general premise of the original film, which was that of urgency and adventure: one single fast paced night of riding fast, drag racing, and picking up girls.That being said. This film is interesting because it's quite ambitious, and does have a lot of character in its own right. It SHOULDN'T have been a sequel; of that there's no question. The question at this point is, how well would this concept have worked as a stand-alone movie? Quite simply, they have too many concepts going on at once, which makes the film both overly contrived, and difficult to follow, with the triteness of each plotline making it hard to really empathize with the characters on screen. It really does play out rather strangely as an action movie that was never really intended as an action movie. It just feels like there's too much going on, with so many characters that aren't fully or properly explored. There's a question that anyone watching this film should be asking themselves. How wacky is YOUR life, and at what point should one's suspension of disbelief go away after being presented with one over-the-top scene after another? The gimmick of each of the 4 storylines taking place on a separate concurrent New Year's Eve, in the end really does test that limit. If you're an ordinary person, your life doesn't suddenly explode and come to a head every New Years, as it does for virtually EVERY character on screen.They were simply trying to fit too many things into one package, and in the process, completely forgot about the appeal of the original film. If you enjoyed the original, you would have wanted to see another film about drag racing and picking up chicks. If that describes you, then you were cheated with this sequel. What this film DOES do well though, is it shows us a caricatural parody of four different facets of American culture surrounding the Vietnam era. Could this have functioned as a stand alone concept? Maybe, if they dropped the New Year's gimmick. It's a fun caper in its own right perhaps, but understandably, caricature and parody are not the types of things any fan of the original "American Graffiti," would have wanted to see made into a sequel.

This belated followup to the classic "American Graffiti" is nowhere in the same league as its predecessor but yet I'm happy to have it anyway. Most of the original stars returned for it, but it's too bad the stories couldn't have been more interesting (with the exception of one good one, which I'll expand on later). At the very least, there was an interesting method born out of necessity which was utilized to tell the tales; as in the original, there are four separate stories going on, though this time they're not all occurring at the same time. Since we learned at the end of the last film that John Milner (Paul Le Mat) would be killed by a drunk driver in 1964, and Terry the Toad (Charles Martin Smith) would wind up Missing In Action in Vietnam in 1965, there would have to be some allowances made. So this sequel occurs on four different New Year's Eve's...In December 1964, John Milner has become a big drag racer. As he prepares for the latest big race, he is introduced to a foreign beauty from Iceland who does not speak a word of English, yet Milner tries to romance her anyhow. This results in a rather dull chapter, but at least at the start we are also reacquainted with the rest of the group as they visit John at the racetrack for support: Ron Howard and Cindy Williams (they're both married now and Cindy's pregnant), Charles Smith and Candy Clark (both are now serious boyfriend and girlfriend, and Terry announces that he is going off to fight in 'Nam).Then we cut to December 1965, where Terry the Toad is struggling through the violent Vietnamese War, and trying desperately to get himself injured somehow so that he can get sent home. This is by far the best story of the four, and always is worth returning to as we jump from one segment to another. (This chapter alone would have made a decent film). To make it feel like a real Vietnam documentary, this story only is filmed in rough and gritty 16mm. Charles Martin Smith once again is very entertaining, as he manages to be funny in trying to maim himself ... but also, this entry includes some poignant material of the hell endured in 'nam as well. One of the characters from the original film returns here - Bo Hopkins as Joe, the former leader of the Pharoahs gang ... who is placed as a fellow war vet here along with Toad.In December 1966, Debbie (Candy Clark) is now a hip, psychedelic '60s chick, who mourns the loss of her former boyfriend Terry and gets stuck with a real creep as her newest beau, who takes advantage of her. Mackenzie Phillips' teenage character is sandwiched into this segment somehow, but it's a tedious chapter which really goes nowhere. The only slightly interesting thing here is that Candy's story is shot through visual trickery, such as split screen and other various cinematic illusions, to capture the trippy feeling of the wild and wacky times.In December 1967 we have Steve and Lori (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), married and struggling with their kids. They fight, they yell at each other a lot, and ultimately Cindy finds herself running off to stay with her second brother Andy (not Richard Dreyfuss; Dreyfuss had played her brother Curt in the original but did not return here, so a second sibling was created). Andy gets himself into trouble by burning his draft card and participating in various hippie protests of the day... another very boring storyline.Throughout the film we have more great songs sprinkled around the events, this time sounds from the later '60s, obviously. It doesn't work out quite as nicely as it had the last time, but at least they tried to recapture the musical tone of the original. I think that if the stories had been better written (aside from the exceptional "Toad in Vietnam" scenario), this might have been much better. But I'd still rather have this movie than not. ** out of ****

After American Graffiti one would think that a sequel would not be necessary. The fates of most of the main characters is revealed at the end of the film, and the film itself complete with no further explanation really necessary. But, likely, with the success of Star Wars and George Lucas, Universal must have been thinking, "Hey, let's make a sequel to American Graffiti. Let's cash in that check!" I can't blame anyone for having that mentality. This is the United States of America, and I believe in Capitalism. However, when that mentality has been exercised with the film industry, 975 times out of 1000 the result has been substandard at best, and as a sequel, More American Graffiti is substandard at best. It doesn't retain the nice feel that its predecessor had. Not all the characters are there and together throughout the film. Richard Dreyfuss probably had the best foresight of any of the other actors in the original, "This movie's not going to be as good as the original." He also had the most success out of the bunch from American Graffiti up to 1979, having starred in Jaws (1975) and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), not that I'm saying the rest of the cast from American Graffiti is bad. So the success and the hypothetical foresight might likely be why he did not opt to be in the sequel. Having the rest of the cast, including Wolfman, return for the sequel gave it some amount of integrity, but the acting wasn't exactly the best in this film. Another thing that gives it integrity is the fact that it has four separate plots intertwined and being told at the same time, just like the original, but with a twist...each plot is set in a different year. You have to be paying attention or you'll get lost. Despite it being far inferior to its predecessor, More American Graffiti, by itself, is interesting. Big tip: don't watch it right after watching American Graffiti. That helps a lot. It starts on New Year's Eve, 1964 at a drag Racing Strip where John Milner is racing for money and trying to get sponsorship. Steve and Laurie and Terry and Debbie go to see John and wish him luck. After that scene, the film goes to New Year's Eve 1965 with Terry in Vietnam trying to shoot himself with his own M16 (which speaks hours about what it was like to be in Vietnam during the conflict). After we leave Terry botching his own wound self-infliction, we move to New Year's Eve 1966 and see Debbie driving in San Francisco, nonchalantly lamenting over the anniversary of the loss of her friend John Milner and her boyfriend, Terry to her current boyfriend Lance. She's no longer a platinum blonde heart breaker that likes Old Harper, but a hippie/groupie that likes marijuana. She get's pulled over by an Officer Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford), and Lance gets taken in for possession of a joint (after having consumed the entire stash of weed he had in the glove compartment of Debbie's car, no less). Debbie's subplot sort of splits off a little bit having Carol (or Rainbow, as she's affectionately referred to by her hippie friends) there with her. After we leave Debbie with the dilemma of having to bail out Lance, we go to New Year's Eve 1967 to see Steve and Laurie with their twin boys. Steve and Laurie have a tumultuous marriage with children. Laurie wants to get a job and start a career of her own, as opposed to being simply a housewife, and Steve, being old-fashioned in ways, forbids it, which makes Laurie angry and causes her to leave the house to go see her brother. This subplot sort of branches into two halves: Steve's side and Laurie's side, but it later comes back together. The 1964 and 1967 subplots are pretty much presented in rather normal fashion. The 1965 subplot is presented in grainy hand-held super 16mm film, trying to resemble war reporters' footage. The 1966 subplot is presented with multiple frames with different angles and shots playing out at the same time kind of like Woodstock (1970) was, trying to get a sort of documentary feel. This very eclectic manner of presentation struck me as rather interesting, as did the nonlinear plot. It keeps you on your feet. So, if you're into that sort of thing—if you like how Quentin Tarrantino tells a story— you might like this. Another aspect that this film has that the original also has, is have the voice of the Wolfman over the radio playing a vast amount of music from the time. Wolfman sort of acts as a master of ceremonies and ties all the subplots together, as does the music he plays. Instead of just hearing Buddy Holly, Bill Haley Chuck Berry and other staples of blues and early rock, we also hear The Doors, The Supremes and The Byrds—staples of that great time in music in the United States. The soundtrack rivals that of Forrest Gump with it's extensive amount of tracks and eclectic sounds. The early selections are there to sort of tie this film to its predecessor and remind you of American Graffiti; while the more recent (for the setting of the film) selections are there to supplement and complement the events. And the soundtrack is presented in the film in the way that the original presented its soundtrack. The music is not there like an orchestral score, but it is being experienced by the characters themselves, for the most part, and it is presented with the certain distortions that the environment in which the characters are has upon it. In conclusion, the film itself is not a terrible film, but since it is billed as a sequel to American Graffiti and is far inferior to its predecessor, I must give it a 6 out of 10.

American Graffiti is one of the best movies ever made. I've seen it at least 30 times and am emotionally affected by it each time I see it. (I graduated from high school in 1962.) However, More American Graffiti is one of the worst movies ever made.It is hard to believe than anyone associated with the great original movie was involved with this terrible sequel. The part of the movie set in Vietnam was extremely inaccurate. (I served 18 months in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division.) The whole movie had nothing worthwhile in any part of it.If anyone ever wants to make a case against making sequels to great movies, More American Graffiti would be the prime example of what can go wrong.