User reviews

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.

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/

"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.

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!

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.

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!

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 ****

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.

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.

..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)

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.

While it wasn't a necessary sequel to the beloved coming-of-age classic, it's still a very powerful and haunting film, which really does an amazing job at expressing the turbulence of the 1960's. For instance, the scenes that really got to me the most were those of Terry "The Toad" Fields in Vietnam, which were very frightening and sad (especially since his story has an incredibly depressing ending). I thought it was clever how the filmmakers used 16mm to film those scenes (just like it were newsreel footage), and it really got me interested in learning more about that period in history. Likewise the protest scenes were equally horrifying and intense to watch, with all the brutal violence that the police inflicted on those who spoke out against the Vietnam War, especially with Laurie and Steve getting caught up in the midst of all of it, when she is out to support the Women's Liberation Movement. Last but not least, the film had a great soundtrack of 1960's tunes, ranging from Simon and Garfunkel, The Doors, Jan and Dean, and The Capitols.

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.

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!

The almost forgotten film MORE AMERICAN GRAFFITI, the 1979 sequel to George Lucas' masterpiece AMERICAN GRAFFITI is not as bad as critics thought, but nowhere near as good as the original. Lucas was the executive producer, but B. W. L. Norton wrote and directed this sequel. All of the cast returned except for Richard Dreyfuss.

It's actually a very ambitious films as it takes place over the course of four New Years Eve day and evening during the middle 1960's. Yet, some stories are more compelling than others. The weakest is Toad in Vietnam. It's the most farfetched story out of all of them. Compared to other films dealing with Vietnam such as APOCALYPSE NOW!, which came out the same year, it pales in comparison.

Lori and Steve story is okay but nothing great. Lori has a fight with Steve because she would like to work and not be a stay home mother. She visits her younger brother, a college student, protesting the Vietnam War and gets caught up in riot between protesters and police.

Debbie's story is more interesting as she has joined the hippie counter culture movement in San Francisco's Haight/Asbury district. The way it was filmed was interesting with multiple camera shots going on at the same time. It reminded me a bit of WOODSTOCK.

The most compelling and bittersweet story is John Milner drag.racing at the Fremont Drag Strip in Fremont, CA on New Years Eve Day 1964, the last day of his life. Between races he meets a young lady from Iceland who doesn't speak English but nevertheless they are attracted to each other and fall in love.

Overall, an uneven film with some good moments. 6/10/

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.

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....

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.