Garr V
I liked this movie! I thought it was fun!
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
09/19/24
Full Review
Mike P
This is not good movie, (by a long shot). But it is fun seeing all these big stars in action again. Instead of showing us one long graduation night; like part 1 did; this gives us a handful of New Years celebrations between 62 and 67... And it's great to see all of them...Especially Ron Howard and Cindy Williams, playing a married couple, at the height of their Happy Days fame; (Shirley + Richie!!)...And Mackenzie Phillips taking a break from One Day At a Time... All grown up now, and confronting her former wingman, Paul Le Mat...(And this chapter also includes people like Scott Glenn, Roseanna Arquette and Mary Kay Place, which is awesome!!) And Candy Clark as a rabblerousing Debbie has a little more to do this time around... That said, the fact that this movie is as aimless and plotless as it is, just brings out one of the dark sides of the original: That it was really just an elaborate improv, that turned out awesome by accident... And lightning almost never strikes twice in situations like this...They should have probably quit while they were ahead...The Vietnam scenes also really bothered me...Charles Martin Smith's "Toad" character; tripping all over himself all the time, with all this inappropriate MASH-type Hogans Heroes-slapstick...And the tone is all wrong, and it's little insulting...Like disrespectful to the whole serious subject...And the Vietnam scenes are also weirdly dark and fuzzy; to a freaky degree, even for a 70s movie... The movie overall feels like this is trying to be another "Nashville" or something.. Like another amazing, envelope pushing character mosaic...And yet it falls short...Because it keeps tiptoeing up to serious issues, and then backing away...Altman would have handled the tragicomedy more deftly; and he wouldn't have been so afraid to go dark and tragic...This should have been stunning and chaotic and poignant and hilarious...But instead it comes across as dumb and meandering...And in the end it's really just much ado about nothing...An oppprtunity wasted...So...It's not a good movie...But it is a fun curio.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
01/24/24
Full Review
Rami A
An underwhelming sequel. I can only conclude that George Lucas had little to no participation in this, which is why the film did not go well.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
11/19/23
Full Review
Steve D
Fails to do justice to any of its characters.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
03/13/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Fails to gain any special momentum after its well-baked predecessor (not terrible either).
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
02/07/23
Full Review
Audience Member
"More American Graffitti", is set over the course of four consecutive New Year's Eves from 1964 to 1967, and depicts scenes from each of these years, intertwined with one another as though events happen simultaneously. Most of the main cast members from the first film returned for the sequel, including Candy Clark, Ron Howard, Paul Le Mat, Cindy Williams, Mackenzie Phillips, Charles Martin Smith, Bo Hopkins, and Harrison Ford. Richard Dreyfuss was the only principal cast member from the original film not to appear in the sequel.
The film received negative reviews from critics, in contrast to the critical acclaim received by its predecessor. Janet Maslin of The New York Times called it "grotesquely misconceived, so much so that it nearly eradicates fond memories of the original ... The times — the story is scattered like buckshot from 1964 to 1967 — have grown dangerous, but these people haven't awakened at all. They're still the same fun-loving rock-and-rollers, and there's nothing they can't trivialize. So here is a comic look at campus rioting. Here are the beach party aspects of the Vietnam War." Dale Pollock of Variety stated in his review that "More American Graffiti may be one of the most innovative and ambitious films of the last five years, but by no means is it one of the most successful ... without a dramatic glue to hold the disparate story elements together, Graffiti is too disorganized for its own good, and the cross-cutting between different film styles only accentuates the problem." Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune gave the film 2 stars out of 4 and called it "one long confusing movie" that is "really too ambitious for its own good." On Sneak Previews, Roger Ebert said he thought it was a "much better film" than Siskel did, that he "had no trouble following it" and that "it's a film worth seeing." Veronica Geng of The New Yorker called the film "a mess of time shifts and pointless, confusing split-screen techniques that make the images look dinky instead of multiplying their impact. For as busy a movie I have seen, it is visually one of the most boring. Norton trades in the grammar of moving pictures for a formula that says the sixties equals fragmentation equals split screen—and split screen we get; baby's first jigsaw puzzles of simultaneous action, until we long for a simple cut from a moving car to a closeup of the driver."
"More American Graffitti" is a truly strange follow up to "American Graffitti" focusing on the main characters life after the first film. It´s a scattered piece of film with intertwining sections that doesn´t really work. He first film had the focus on the innocence of youth while this follow up goes the opposite direction and focus on the Vietnam war, anti-war protests etc. Much heavier subjects making the films so different from eachother. And the decision to use split screens to tell the story makes the film even more uneven and confusing plus the idea of not telling the storyline in chronological order doesn´t help. George Lucas reflected on the experience in 1997 during the production of "Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace", remarking to Frank Oz: "You just never know on these things. I did a More American Graffiti; it made ten cents. Just failed miserably." But, we get a great soundtrack nevertheless. All in all, there´s no need to see this film if you ask me.
Trivia: George Lucas came up with the idea of shooting each of the four storylines in a different aspect ratio. Milner's Drag racing was in the 1950's exploitation style using a wide angle, stationary camera. The Vietnam sequences were shot on 16-milimeter film, like the television reports of the time. Laurie and Steve's campus riot resembled a Hollywood version of student rebellions like The Strawberry Statement (1970) or Getting Straight (1970). Debbie's trip were in multiple-image split-screen, inspired by Woodstock (1970).
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
02/21/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
>
