Why it's a good sequel.


There have been a lot of people bashing this movie on this board and I just needed to speak up and say why I liked this film so much and why it works as a good sequel.

The original film takes place in 1962, but reflected the attitude of the 1950s which was slowly fading away in the early 60s. The fast cars, the drive in diners, the radio, high school "hop" dances, etc.

This movie captured what happened as the 60s moved on and the new attitudes that came up to shape our world.

The characters we know and loved from the first film are intact here (with the exception of Curt who they briefly mention as living in Canada) and are given the opportunity to grow.

Terry "Toad" Fields who was such a lovable nebbish in the first film, does the most growing up here. When we see him for a bit in the 1964 Milner segments, he seems just like the Toad from the first film, naive, goofy and ready to fight for his country. By the time we get to his own segments in Vietnam 1965, he's already jaded by the war and wants to get the hell home. He's more world weary, not nerdy at all, and when it comes down to it, damn-right heroic when he saves his friend after Joe the Pharoah is killed. I was rooting for him the whole time as he staged his elaborate "death" and exploded *beep* all over that *beep* of a major.

Debbie seemed like the most likely candidate from the first film to get caught up in the drugs, sex and rock n roll culture of the 60s. In the first movie she was the one looking for "hard stuff" and she seemed to be into the fads of the time (fast cars, big hair, etc.). So it's totally conceivable that she would in fact become a stripper, bail her druggie boyfriend out of jail and join a rock band. The beauty of it is that she probably wouldn't have gone down that road if Toad hadn't joined the army. They probably would have gotten married by then, but such is life. And she does grow up by the movie's end, because she gets rid of the druggie boyfriend, ditches her life as a stripper and decides to do something with her life. We find out in the epilogue credits that she becomes a country western singer.

Steve & Laurie go through changes as well from their characters in the first film, but ones that stick pretty much well to how they behaved before. In the first film, Steve & Laurie were having problems in their relationship almost the entire time, most of it having to do with Steve's lack of direction and commitment in their relationship and in his life with going to college. In this film, Steve now has a career as an insurance agent, but still being stubborn he tells Laurie (in a very mid 60s male chauvanistic way) that she cannot get a job. This leads Laurie to go stay with her other brother who's in college and then they both get caught up in the college riot/draft dodging antics of the 60s. It's a great moment for both of them, because Laurie is able to stand up and declare her womanhood and Steve's able to realize (and he says this) that the world's problems makes his marriage problems seems so trivial in comparison.

Finally, there's Milner's car-racing segment. This segment clearly shows a guy who's aging that is wanting to hold onto the mood and values of a time he holds dearly (the events of the first movie). His crazy street racing in the first film becomes racing for money in this movie, but when it comes down to it all he really wants is love and he shows it for the first time in his life by caring for someone he can't even communicate with. It's so ironic since his character was so defined by his motor mouth. It's sad also because when he really does find love, it's right before his untimely death at the very end of the film.

Now everyone's entitled to an opinion, but the main point that people keep arguing as why they don't like this film, I think is the film's strongest point.

They complain that the structure is so vastly different from the first film. In that movie the whole story took place on one night and all the stories sort of merged in and out of each other. The first film had a very specific mood to it, it had an innocence of the late 50s with a mix of confusion (especially in Steve & Curt's characters) of the early 60s. It all took place under one giant night sky and Wolfman Jack's voice brought every character together.

This movie is structured differently. Its split into four segments and each segment takes place on New Year's Eve of 4 different years (1964, 65, 66 & 67). I think this very much contributes to the mood which is also different because its about the turbulent 60s which was about change and confusion. Confusion of the war, change of family values, change of styles and music and equality. But at the end of the movie they do something wonderful. When it rings New Year's, all the characters sing "Auld Lang Syne" at the same time, so while its shuttling back between 4 different timelines, we still feel like they all exist under that same big night sky.

"And this baby's made of chocolate lollipops."

reply

I disagree. It is a poorly constructed, poorly acted mess. But I didn't think American Graffiti was that great either.

reply

I think you have to see this movie more than once. And you have to pay attention and listen.
The first time I saw it, I didn't like it. When I saw again a few years later (this afternoon) I liked it.

reply

Roughshodboy:
Re: I disagree. It is a poorly constructed, poorly acted mess. But I didn't think American Graffiti was that great either.

You think American Graffiti was a poor movie? Are you cinematically retarded? It was one of the best movies of its genre (coming of age). In fact, it is one of the best movies ever made. Not only is the movie ranked very high by cinephiles, critics and fans, but in its INITIAL release American Graffiti grossed over $115,000,000 in North America alone, which is roughly 92 times its budget of $1,250,000. This makes American Graffiti is the highest cost-to-profit success in film history.

You only provide negative opinions for all movies of this genre. Negativity is not a sign of intelligent, critical thought regarding the cinema. Therefore your views and comments about movies are worthless and ought to be discarded.

Die dulci fruere.


"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind, we never die."

reply

I think Deep Throat has it beat as far cost to profit ratio. It cost $25,000 to make and has grossed over $600,000,000 so far.

reply

LOL. How about Debbie Does ...

I was quoting the initial release figures for the U.S. only and did not include revenues from worldwide viewings, re-releases, the video/dvd sales, or the record/CD sales, all of which I am told is over one billion dollars. Not bad for a movie that cost $ 1.25, including the $ 80,000.00 for licensing the rights of the songs used on the soundtrack.

Lucas wrote every scene with a specific song of that era in mind. But since RCA was holding Lucas up for ransom for the licensing rights to use the songs of Elvis Presley, all the scenes with his songs were cut. Stupid, greedy RCA. Every performer who appeared on the soundtrack had their career revived or given a major boost by this movie.

Over 100 minutes were cut from the released director's cut and nobody knows where this missing 100 minutes is located at present. I'd pay big money to see the director's cut with the missing 100 minutes restored. We should all write George Lucas and beg him to please restore this movie and re-release as full uncut version.


"To live in the hearts of those we leave behind, we never die."

reply

It's a "Slice of life" sequel.

Milner and the Icelandic babe.
Steve and Laurie's crappy marriage-(the least entertaining part. But that's the whole point)
Toad trying to deal with Vietnam.
Debbie trying to deal with S.F.

It's anti-war statement very controversial with the
knee-jerk "let's fight because we're scared/angry"
faction of the public in the post 9/11 U.S.A.

reply

Filthy Beast,

Hate to burst your bubble, but the Blair Witch Project is actually the highest cost-to-profit success.
$60,000 budget and a $248,639,099 worldwide gross.
Thats 4143 times it's budget.


I would like your take on More American Graffiti though. Did you think the "clever" cinematography of Debbie's segment was amazing? Having 1-4 different sized screens every scene?
That was by far the most annoying segements of the movie, and least enjoyable experience I've had in a movie (maybe not for you).
What about those (alot of) poorly acted scenes?
Milner's segment was the only part I enjoyed, and the soundtrack was a close second. The credits were third.

This was not even close to being on-par with American Graffiti, which I agree with what you discussed.

reply

I agree with your whole post, and I will add...

1) This film wasn't SUPPOSED to be as carefree/happy as its predecessor, but WAS designed to show that being "anti-war" was synonymous with being a depressing person...and...

2) Ths film proves a point one of my college roommates and I have tried to "drive home" to people our age, 99.9% of whom don't "get it". The point:
The 50s didn't "end" on 12/31/59...they ended when JFK got shot...
The 60s didn't "end" on 12/31/69...they ended when Nixon resigned...
The 70s didn't "end" on 12/31/79...they ended when the Iran hostages were released...
*****************************************************************************
The 80s didn't "end" on 12/31/89...they ended when Iraq invaded Kuwait...
And the 90s didn't end on 12/31/99...they ended on 9/11/2001...
(We added the 80s and 90s when we "got old"!)

reply

Good way of summing that all up.

reply

If we enjoy the movie on its own merits, rather than trying to compare it to the original, if we just let it entertain us, and show us what happened to the characters we cared for in the first, this movie is a Success in many ways. It had the look and feel of the sixties down pat, and besides, Candy Clark was so cute in that hippie chick outfit, and who didn't get choked up when Bo Hopkins was shot or when you know Milner was going to die. Not a perfect movie, but still entertaining for what it is. Either enjoy it or don't~

reply

Well put. Its not a great movie, or a great sequel... but its fun to watch.
Its sort of a chance to sort of see your old friends a couple of years later.
Paul Le Mat stole the show for sure, and the soundtrack was awesome.
Its a fun watch every few years. If they had tried to do it the same as the first one, it would have been a total flop.

reply

I hate this sequel. Pales in comparison to the original. Not good at all.

reply

I thought it was very good,lots of ironic outcomes.That's life!Very close minded people here,but Avatar was considered an excellent movie?????

reply

I agree OP. Excellent post.

100% Comic Book Purist, and Bloody Proud of it !

reply