More American Graffiti (1979) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
50 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
8/10
The original cast returns to adjust to life during the Vietnam Era.
NickCage-213 November 1998
This sequel to 'American Graffiti', the hit movie that spawned the 'retro `50s' fad of the early `70s, features everybody from the original cast except Richard Dreyfuss. Now older and wiser, the kids of 'Where were you in `62' learn to deal with life during the mid `60s Vietnam War Era. The film is unique in its filmmakers' method of juxtaposing frames of concurrent action from different scenes side by side with current scenes. The sequel's storyline idea takes its cue from the original film's end-credits, as all action again occurs within one day in their lives, but this time, in yet another original move, it's the same day, New Years' Eve, in 4 separate years in 4 of the different protagonists' lives. The film moves back and forth across the years effectively; to `64 with dragster John Milner in the race of his life, to `65 with Terry The Toad in Vietnam, to `66 with Terry's girlfriend Debbie Dunham, now a hippie chick in San Francisco just prior to the Summer of Love, to `67 with Steve & Laurie Bolander, the king & queen of the prom, now married with children in Modesto, CA. It explores the main themes of the `60s era: the war, muscle cars, drugs, campus protests, burning your draft card, police brutality `a la Kent State, "make-love-not-war", and more great music from the era. A must see for fans of the original film, the use of the inventive filming techniques is unusual and surely dismayed theatergoers upon its release as it bombed frightfully, probably due to the disdain for the `50s & `60s as being passe on the fringe of the `80s. But it is still a nicely-done film and quite enjoyable. It also features cameos from others in the original movie, including Harrison Ford reprising his role as Bob Falfa, now an S.F.P.D. motorcycle patrolman, plus Mackenzie Phillips & Bo Hopkins. A great study of `60s life and times.
30 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Hard To Explain...
The Terminator15 May 2001
Being such a huge fan of American Graffiti, I was thrilled when I saw that it was out on video finally (we here in the UK have been deprived of it for 20 years). Checking out the IMDB while waiting for it to arrive, I was, however, weary of my purchase. An average 4 out of 10 did not look good. Of course, the mistake everyone makes though is that this should be compared to the original - which is impossible. AG was, and still is, a unique film that can never be replicated. Thus, I have to commend the concept behind this other unique gem, which follows four characters through four different New Years Eves. The return of so many original cast members is fascinating, even the little Pharoh is back helping Big John on his dragster! Yes, the split screens from Debbie's year was annoying, but apart from that I cannot really criticise this film. It is more of a documentary - style 'Where are they now' kind of thing, and it really works! So - here is my advise. Unfortunately this aint on DVD, so you'll need a VHS too. Watch the original and marvel at its delights. Then, the moment the credits finish rolling, whack this vid into your player. This way, you won't be disappointed. 10 out of 10.
26 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
yes, flawed, but entertaining
thefensk29 December 2009
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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Split Screen
axvictim6 November 2006
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.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Unnecessary, Nearly Unwatchable Sequel
dglink15 July 2004
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.
30 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Their futures were foretold at the conclusion of the original...
moonspinner5531 July 2001
So why did we need "More"? It must've been a corporate decision--with financial gain the bottom line. If so, that plan didn't quite work, as "More American Graffiti" failed to catch on with its target audience, mostly due to the fact it reflects not the 1960s but TV sitcoms derived from '60s nostalgia. The Ron Howard and Cindy Williams segment plays like a "Happy Days" rerun with bad language, however Charles Martin Smith's Vietnam episode is vividly captured--and the idea of him trying to blow off his own arm in order to get back home says more about the war than "The Deer Hunter" did in three hours. Paul LeMat has some good scenes flirting with a pretty Swede, while Candy Clark kicks around as a kooky hippie. The film, produced by George Lucas, is full of colorful distractions: multi-image cinematography, constant period music on the soundtrack and lots of overacting. Unfortunately, nothing can distract from the laziness of the writing, nor from the film's somewhat tiring concept--each story takes place on a different New Year's Eve--which is a gimmick, nothing more. The episodes aren't shaped with much cleverness, and the film is rather insensitive and preconceived. ** from ****
19 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
What can I say?
unbend_544027 July 2001
There was no way More American Graffiti was going to be a great film. It was following up one of the most popular movies of the 70's. George Lucas was barely involved in the production. It had a messed up story that took place on 4 seperate New Years Eves. Considering all the things working against it, I suppose it's not all that bad. There are some great scenes, but there's also an equal amount of bad scenes. John Milner's story is fairly entertaining. Toad's Vietnam story is a lot of fun to watch. But the other two stories are mediocre at best. I guess you can say half of the movie works, and the other half doesn't. Parts of the film are very funny. The highlights being Toad's attempts to get out of the Vietnam War, and Harrison Ford's cameo as a traffic cop. As a huge fan of the original American Graffiti, I got some enjoyment out of seeing all the characters again. But for most people, More American Graffiti will probably feel like a waste of time.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
More is less
jrs-815 October 1999
Warning: Spoilers
"More American Graffiti" is certainly an ambitious film. Sadly it doesn't live up to the original though it does have some fine moments. I think the problem is in the story structure. We see a day (New Year's Eve) in the life of the familiar characters (sans Richard Dreyfuss who had blossomed into an Oscar winning star) in the years 63, 64, 65, 66. The story jumps back and forth all over the place. The first two stories, one with dragster John Milner at the race track and falling in love, and the Toad on tour in Vietnam desperately trying to get himself sent home are well done and the best stories. The problem is that we know at the end of the first film that both these characters are going to die. So you find yourself distracted as you wait to see if this is the moment. (Thankfully those moments are never shown though there is a haunting final moment with Milner where you know what is going to happen on the other side of the hill). But the last two stories involving hippie Candy Clark and her friends, and then the troubles marraige of Ron Howard and Cindy Williams (where they fight the WHOLE movie) are singular failures.

Still the movie has its virtues including another great rock soundtrack and some nice cameos (especially Harrison Ford). So give it a look but don't expect for "More" to be more then the original.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
George Lucas would love to take his name off this one.
paulinaturnover25 December 2015
If you liked American Graffiti, that's a reason not to see this lame sequel. For everything good about American Graffiti, that goodness does not carry over to "More American Graffiti." This is the rock bottom when it comes to filmmaking, no story, no narrative structure, bad acting and directing, overall bad concept, and at one point it LITERALLY turns into a lame slide show, a sequence of still images, I kid you not. And the carefully crafted quintessential 50's soundtrack of American Graffiti? That's gone too as More American Graffiti is set in the 60's with a totally forgettable pablum including Andy Williams "Moon River." Of all movies I've seen in the past several decades, I can't recall one that I regret having seen more than this one.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Not the iconic film the original is but...
Alfred Stanley28 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
More American Graffiti captures something of the transition from innocence to a constant worry with life and death issues that were very much a part of coming of age from the mid-Sixties onward. In 1973, there was a poignancy to the end of the original when the fates of four of the main characters were revealed. This becomes the launching point for the sequel. If the ending of the original hit you like a hammer -- as I think it did most audiences in 1973 -- put this on your list of movies to rent some day. If not, well, too bad: you have already missed experiencing something important about the original. American Graffiti, fond look back that it is, was conceived and executed at a time of tumult. More American Graffiti is a bittersweet look back at the tumult in which loose ends are tied up and favorite characters come alive again. Not as vividly, to be sure, but satisfyingly, nonetheless.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Pointless sequel
preppy-313 December 2004
"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.
13 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Should have stopped with the first one
grahamsj31 November 2000
Warning: Spoilers
As with many sequels, this one just doesn't have the quality or the impact of the original. The first one belongs up there with the rest of the greats. This one just doesn't cut it. The first film had a magical "good time" feeling about it that is totally missing from this film. We became enamored of all these characters (minus Richard Dreyfuss) in an age of innocence. Now, a few years later, they have changed so much that they are largely different people. While this is what happens in real life, we don't expect this to happen to our favorite film characters! The film doesn't have the humor that the original had, and we were expecting to laugh. What little humor is there is dark. The first film also featured what is probably the greatest soundtrack ever, while this one is good but not even close to the original's. This film is so totally different from the original that it isn't even actually a sequel. I gave it a 4.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not the bomb you'd think
monsieurzy30 October 2004
..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)
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
A very unfortunate failure
funkyfry19 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I really don't think producer George Lucas didn't really set out to make such a horrible sequel as "More American Graffiti" turned out to be. But in retrospect it was the first crack in his then-seemingly impenetrable armor. Coming straight off the huge success of "American Graffiti" and produced basically at the same time as "Star Wars", this film was the first that Lucas successfully took away from Coppola without having to bother directing it himself. The result is typical Lucas -- far more interesting in terms of its structure and the way it's edited than the actual material. The writer/director Bill Norton has been allowed to use a variety of different screen ratios and split screens to produce odd associations in the images. While it's interesting to see ironic juxtapositions of the 4 story lines, the style ultimately only epitomizes the fractured nature of the film itself.

Lucas' brilliant original film was all about a group of friends on the archetypical "last big night" before school ends and Kurt (Ron Dreyfuss) and Steve (Ron Howard) are supposed to go off to college. One thing that made that film work, despite the fact that it's very episodic, is that you had the core characters together at the beginning and they come back together at the end. There's a disposition of time, like in Nick Ray's "Rebel Without a Cause" where a certain period of time becomes very elastic and takes on more meaning than such a specific time really would in actual life, but everything takes place in a static space. "More American Graffiti" is basically the opposite -- the space is very dynamic, with Toad (Charles Martin Smith) off in Vietnam, his former girlfriend Debbie (Candy Clark) partying with hippies in San Francisco, Steve and Laurie (Cindy Williams) involved in student protests in Berkeley, and John Miler (Paul Le Mat) drag racing on the semi-pro circuit. In a contrived meeting early in the film all the principles are brought together to watch John race, but after that the threads don't come back together and weave apart the way they do in the original. Instead they split off and we follow the characters through about 3 years' of time, just seeing various events on New Years Eve in what seems to be 1967, 68 and 69. It's easy for the audience to become confused, and I think it's fair to say that we do. While the original film seemed to condense important events and rites of passages into unreal theatrical time that produced an experience of nostalgia even for those who never experienced those events, this sequel drags and stretches the few plot points from the epilogue of the original and attempts to make them into a coherent film.

The best parts of the movie to me are the ones with Candy Clark in SF and Charles Martin Smith in Nam. Some of the jokes do fall flat but the style of those sections is interesting and they form a neat contrast with each other. A good movie could maybe have been made if these parts were just a bit better, and if the other parts weren't such a drag. Speaking of drag racing, the whole plot with Milner talking to a foreign exchange student was really lame, unfunny, and throwing in Mackenzie Phillips for a cameo didn't help at all. It was just another contrived moment, like when they briefly explain why Curt isn't in the movie because he's already in Canada. Instead Laurie just has another brother who is basically identical to Curt but has a different name and is now played by a very boring actor. There's a black kind of satire to some of the Vietnam stuff, very similar to what I would imagine Lucas and John Milius' original idea for "Apocalypse Now" would have been like. And there's some of that manic fun in the San Francisco scenes that made the first movie fun. But still along with that fun stuff, you have the rest of the movie dragging it down, as if anyone wants to see Steve and Laurie argue in their horrible suburban abode as if they were auditioning for a Spielberg movie about divorce and child abandonment. I think even if those parts of the movie weren't so painful, it still wouldn't really be comparable to the first movie because there's no closure and no sense of coming back together or of anybody having learned anything. It just sort of ends at the point when they ran out of money or something, a cheap freeze frame imitation of "Two-Lane Blacktop" and so many better films.

Like the original however, this film has a great soundtrack of period hits that is probably worth owning for its own sake and almost makes the movie itself palatable. The performances by Country Joe and the Fish are great, and Scott Glenn all duded up as a hippie in love with Candy Clark is a sight to see -- I wonder if even back then he had to use a wig? I couldn't possibly recommend this movie, and yet it has some small affection in my heart because I love the original so much. Every couple of decades I guess I have to give this movie a try just to make sure that it's really as worthless as I remember it being. It's a party killer but it's something that every fan of "American Graffiti" or George Lucas in general will want to see at least once or twice. It shows how a lot of effort can go into something and it can still turn out pretty half baked. It makes you reflect on how much of a miracle it is that Lucas actually made such a good movie as "American Graffiti" in the first place, as if all the elements were in place and all the appropriate gods had been placated. Unfortunately such was not the case for this film or for Bill Norton.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
This film is all over the place!
moviedude113 January 2009
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!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Why was this sequel made?
Tommy Nelson14 September 2008
I suggest if you have already seen the original American Graffiti, do not see this movie. If you haven't seen the original, I still don't recommend this, but it will be a lot less painful to watch. The characters from the first film are great, and by the end you fell a connection to them. This movie sets out to show how bad their lives have become. It's a chore to watch!

Set on New year's eve in 1964, '65, '66 and '67, we have four stories about the characters from the first film. In '64, we have John Milner (Paul Le Mat) who is now a professional drag racer. He meets a foreign girl Eva, and though his plot really goes nowhere, it's the best of the four. In 1965, we have Toad (Charles Martin Smith) who is stuck in Vietnam, and more than anything, he wants out. He tries to find ways to hurt himself or do stupid things to get out. In '66, we have Debbie (Candy Clark), the girl who Toad picked up in the first movie. Now she is a pot smoking hippie, and really I'm not sure what her plot was about. It was her going to a concert...not much of anything happened. Finally, in 1967, Steve Bolander (Ron Howard) and Laurie Bolander (Cindy Williams) are having marriage problems that end in a anti-war rally and police action.

None of these stories are very good. The script in some parts features very, very bad dialogue. These poor characters who I enjoyed so much in the first film, ended up where they are here...why? Why was this sequel made? I guess if a sequel was made, it had to feature the Vietnam war, and hippies and police action, but the real thing is that this movie shouldn't have been made.

The direction was stylish, but it just amounts in a huge headache. Each story has a different style. Milner's is just a regular (depending on how you watch it) wide screen, and is filmed how the rest of the movie should be. Toad's plot was shot in 16mm, and what it amounts to is a poor looking picture, which is the size of a small box in the middle of the screen. Debbie's plot is shot in multi-screen. At one point there might have been one screen, but for the good majority, it's anywhere from two to twenty screens up at once. Don't bother trying to follow the screens, since there's nothing going on anyways. Steve and Laurie's plot has the weirdest filming style. It's style really doesn't mean anything, and is dumb and pointless. Instead of just a full widescreen, it's a condensed widescreen that looks like a full screen version of widescreen. Though I don't like the others, at least I understand what they were going for, this one just doesn't make sense.

The music is this movie's saving grace, not that it could save this! Bob Dylan, Simon and Grafunkel, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and dozens of others have nice songs featured here. They don't save the feature, they just make it a little better than it is. It's still bad!

Overall, this is a pointless sequel. Any fan of the original should avoid this lackluster sequel!

My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 110 mins. PG for language, drug use and violence
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A Terrible Movie
arthurkelly21 January 2007
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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Disappointing and Depressing Sequel
darkladuke-112 August 2004
Like a lot of people, I loved the original; "American Graffiti" was one of the great movies of the 70s. The sequel, "More American Graffiti" is a horrible, depressing mess of a movie. It wasn't funny, the wide-eyed, likable characters had become cynical and jaded, and the stories were contrived (such as "Laurie's" character having another brother because Richard Dreyfuss didn't do the sequel and "Terry the Toad" and "Pharaoh Joe" somehow managing to serve together in Vietnam). They even have a police officer by the name of "Falfa" (Harrison Ford's character in the original) who makes a "cameo". He doesn't even look like Harrison Ford, who was way too big a star by 1979 to even bother with this garbage.

The operative word here is "funny". This movie isn't even amusing. Debbie (Candy Clark) is a stripper mixed in with a bunch of dope spoking hippies and trying to bail her dealer boyfriend out of jail; Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard and Cindy Williams), the lovebirds in the original, have two kids and have become an annoying, bickering couple; Adorable little tomboy Carol (MacKenzie Phillips) has become "Rainbow", yet another hippie child. John Milner (Paul LeMat) is a loser race car driver whose fortune was foretold at the end of the original. Even Wolfman Jack, whose voice was such an integral part of the original, and gave it such a great flow, only is heard sporadically.

Perhaps it was different writers, a different director and the complete lack of a cohesive story line that makes this movie such a dismal failure.

The episodic charm and authentic nostalgia of the original is nowhere to be found in the sequel. It was a movie that didn't need to be made and its best just to remember what a great movie "American Graffiti" was and avoid the movie with "More" in the title.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A Very Bad Film
azimuth36127 February 2007
Were it not for the fact that this came as a 2-dvd set paired with the original American Graffiti; were it not for the fact that I've been here in Iraq for several months and, at this point, will watch pretty much anything, I would have tossed this movie in the garbage after the first ten minutes. This movie was appallingly bad on so many levels I just don't know where to start. Poorly acted, shot, directed, written, scored, edited. My 9-year old daughter's first forays into film-making are superior to this - and she was filming the dog sleeping. (Come to think of it, I give that piece of cinematography 9 stars. But I'm biased.) If you have even the slightest appreciation for quality film-making, then avoid this piece of garbage at all costs. No character in this movie has a single redeeming quality save for the Icelandic girl who doesn't even have a single line in English. I'll not waste more of my time describing what a bad movie this is.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Forgotten Sequel.
AaronCapenBanner29 August 2013
Only reason I saw or even heard of this film is that it was included as a double-feature on the DVD with the first. Perfectly awful film fails miserably at recreating the sense of nostalgia of the first, despite some of the same cast returning. The film is poorly directed in a heavy-handed way, using the "multi-screen" approach(different scenes being shown occurring at the same time) which is distracting and pretentious.

Story tries to clarify plot points alluded to by the "fates" of those characters shown over the ending credits, but film feels utterly pointless, and new story elements(with Ron Howard and Cindy Williams) are really horrendous, so mundane and dispiriting.

Even George Lucas admitted he didn't know why he allowed it to be made!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This is absolutely awful!
Justcalljoe30 May 2013
Wow! There have been bad movies and there is this movie and it is just terrible! The attempts to be cute with different photography techniques fall flat. The story is extremely lame. The first movie was great and well done but this one really sucks. It should only be recommended to someone you wish to punish! The primary actors have always been favorites but they really fall flat with this extremely weak script. Ron Howard appears very uncomfortable with his role and is never convincing. But, with a script this bad one can only do so much. The Vietnam sequences are exceptionally strained as well as the remainder of the movie. Watch anything else and you'll likely do better. Best of luck!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Better than people give it credit for.
ligbob2 September 1999
I can understand why hard-core fans of the original AG would be disappointed in this film, but I think they might be letting their hearts get in the way. This was a very good film. The scenes with LeMat at the drag races were very authentic of the times; I know because I was there at about the same time period. The foreign-exchange girl Eva Bjorn is one of the prettiest girls I have ever seen in movies! Sure, there were some scenes that dragged on and the campus riot scenes were a little hokey but overall Lucas did a good job of being realistic, a trait missing from a lot of movies these days.You don't have to invoke suspension of disbelief to enjoy this movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Where the "Happy Days" went
patodea21 March 2001
This greatly underrated film shows what happened to "My Generation" after high school, when we were tossed into the Viet Nam war. It is as good as "American Graffiti", and the two should be viewed together. It is really worth seeing, check it out.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Is too light on too serious subjects.
Boba_Fett113810 December 2006
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/
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Another overlooked gem.
suzy q12313 March 2001
Of course, this film is probably best viewed right after you watch

the incomparable original "American Graffiti"- but I think it stands

on its own as well. Shot and edited in a very original way,

especially for its time, this movie features almost the entire cast of

the original. Richard Dreyfus is the exception, and he is missed,

but not much. There are many plots, many time shifts, a lot of

stories juggling in the air, but it's all handled with grace and

aplomb by this relatively unknown director. It's a fun film- I wish

they'd do the same thing with "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" or

"Animal House". It's just fun to see all these characters from your

past all 'growed' up.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews