Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

It is a performances centric movie

What begins as a feel-good-human-interest story turns into a mystery, then a tragedy, and ultimately an outrage.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

For Toad to be a Warranted Officer is out of character for Toad. He should have been a privet or corporeal. Now that he has been made a warranted officer Let us look at how WO1 would act and how he would have been treated. A WO has paid to high of a price to hurt himself or go AWOL ,or become a deserter. They were 'Junior' officers They behaved that way and were treated the same as officers. This is why he would never clean latrines or any other enlisted mans labor detail. When the Major said this is officers country get out ,would never be said to a WO. He had the right and privilege to be in officers country.

The gang is back for more! Ron Howard and Cindy Williams are now married! Her brother is demonstrating against the draft and Charles Martin Smith is doing everything he can in Vietnam to get sent home.The issues of the 60's are brought to light here, but it's all over the place, beginning with New Year's Eve 1963, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1964, then three minutes later, it's New Year's Eve 1965, then three minutes later, it's back to 1963 again. Martin Smith is talking about his friend dying in a drag race a year ago, and a couple of scenes later, this friend is winning his next heat in a drag race and to top it all off, the drug scene and the flower children enter the picture (or pictures, in some cases, as many as three different camera shots are shown on the screen at the same time).If you want to watch this film, you have to WATCH this film, but I'd advise you to stick to the original and leave it there. Wolfman Jack is heard in the beginning of the film before almost every song played in the background, but where'd he go? Maybe HE couldn't keep up with this film, either, and quit! 2 out of 10 stars!

Face it-- how could there be an equal sequel to a movie like "American Graffiti"? The answer: there could not be one. Especially, it would seem, "More American Graffiti," a follow-up bursting with asinine visuals and headache-inducing split-screen editing. If this seems like a negative review, think again. The thing is, "More" is not a worthy successor, but it comes as close as any could ever dream of doing. It may seem somewhat pointless given the fact that the futures of all four of the original's main characters are revealed in that film's final moments, but there's just something undeniably fun about this tale of hippies, burnt draft cards, and a suddenly invisible Wolfman. Those of you who have a burning hatred of sequels, stay away from this one-- it will only infuriate you. However, if you want "C-" entertainment so bad you don't care from whence it comes, try "More American Graffiti." Now... baby love, my baby love....

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.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/