More American Graffiti (1979) ** (out of 4)At the end of American GRAFFITI we were told the outcome to the four main characters. This sequel allows us to catch up with some of them and then see their outcome. Steve and Laurie (Ron Howard, Cindy Williams) are now married but that is coming apart. John Milner (Paul Le Mat) is trying to get his racing career off the ground. Terry (Charles Martin Smith) is fighting in Vietnam. His flame Debbie (Candy Clark) is with a loser boyfriend.It would be unfair to call MORE American GRAFFITI a poor cash grab because it really wasn't. This sequel arrived six years after the original film and it's not quite as awful as some make it out to be but there's no question that it's rather pointless. I say that because the original film told us what happened to the main characters so seeing "how" it happened here really doesn't contain any drama or suspense.Another problem with the movie is its structure. The film film could bounce from one character to another because everything was happening over a single night. The same bounce game is happening here but it takes place over a period of years and since you already know the conclusion to two of the stories there's really not much going on here. THere's an anti-Vietnam and anti-police message throughout the picture so perhaps they wanted to show the fight that these folks were doing by the end of the decade.Another problem is that there are some pretty uninteresting stories here. In fact, I'd argue that there's really nothing interesting going on here. The worst story is clearly the one with Debbie. The Vietnam stuff is poorly shot and the director beats you over the head with the message so much that you tune out even more. The racing really has no drama because, well, you know the ending. The entire marriage drama is basically an extended fight of the battles this couple had in the original only with a silly protest angle thrown in.The performances are good for what they are and there's no question that we've got a terrific soundtrack once again. Since you love these characters from the first movie you can somewhat be entertained by this and go along for the ride but there's no question that overall this movie is rather pointless. The technical stuff dealing with the footage and alternate aspect ratios didn't help matters either.

I was a big fan of American Graffiti, and was eagerly looking forward to the sequel. I know that some sequels are great, and others should never have been made. More American Graffiti is in that category. Since we know what happened to many of the original characters, a good sequel could have been made if done the right way. The points of the Viet Nam war, drag racing, women's lib, the protests against the war and the hippie movement could all have been shown, without the confusion that this movie portrays them. Although I am by no means a writer and have never written a screenplay, after seeing this horrible sequel, I came up with one that seemed more plausible because I was utterly disappointed at this one.Instead of showing 4 different New Year's Eves, why not have it done as a flashback. Steve & Laurie could be reminiscing at a New Year's Eve Party in the 80's with her brother. They could talk about 1968, and show the riots and how they have worked through their marital problems. Then Debbie and Carol(Rainbow)could stop by and reminisce about their hippie years and what they are doing then. Steve can go out for more beer and run into Terry, who is back in CA working in a 7-11. He brings him to the party and he tells how he escaped Viet Nam and why everyone thinks he was dead. Then they hear a report on the news about a drag race accident, and they all remember Milner's drag racing and what led up to his horrific crash. It can end with them toasting to Milner's memory and the hope that they can survive in the 80's and beyond.After reading other reviews, I understand why from a technological viewpoint the use of the camera shots were innovative for the time. That being said, it does not make up for the mishmash this movie is. Future filmmakers should take heed about how NOT to write a sequel.

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.

Further adventures of the characters from American Graffiti. A lot of people reacted badly to the fact that the first movie was linear, happening in chronological order over one night, while the sequel is spread over 4 years and jumps around from one year to the next, etc. Add the split screen (which is an homage to 60's visual styles) and people got confused and tired of trying to keep track of which story and what period of time was being portrayed. That said, there are some really great scenes in this movie. In particular, I loved the scenes where Laurie (Cindy Williams) goes to the campus protest, gets caught up in it when she wasn't any part of it and has to run for her life (had this happen to me once). Then when her husband Steve (Ron Howard) steals a police van to rescue her, it was a delightful turn of the tables.