I'm a big fan of the original film and have yet seen this film and I'm curious to know how much you liked this movie.
shareIt wasn't a great film, but it wasn't bad. The film did an excellent job of recreating the 1960s look and feel. It was quite authentic in that respect. The split screen annoyed me at times. I saw it in the theaters way back in '79, then I saw it again recently on TV. It kept me watching. I've seen much worse films. It definitely suffered without Curt (Richard Dreyfuss). They probably shouldn't have made the film if they couldn't get him to be in it. Or they should've found someone else to play him.
"You can dish it out, but you got so you can't take it no more." - Caesar Enrico Bandello
Just don't treat it as a sequel so your expectations won't be too high. Think of it instead as an anti-war movie.
shareI think it was terrible. I did find the Vietnam War stuff interesting -- both in 'nam and on the college campus, but it didn't save the movie from being unfocussed.
I'd give it a 4.
The original was a classic (and is a classic). This one was pointless and tedious although the soundtrack is a nice cross section of Sixties music (minus any British Invasion bands regrettably...but then it is AMERICAN graffiti)
I loved the original; this, not nearly as much.
When I saw the ending of the original, with the blurbs about what happened to the four guys, it seemed like, 'I'd like to know how the characters get from this ending to that.' The Toad, missing in Viet Nam, for instance? But we know from history that the US got heavily involved in SE Asia, so the simpler times of '62 were just about to get a lot more complicated.
As a big fan of the original, I had to see the sequel. There were some surprises, a good soundtrack, some parts I didn't like or "buy," but it was ok. The bits about Debbie, for instance, were just weak.
Overall I think it suffered from trying to tell four different, mostly unconnected stories. E.g., in the original, Steve and Laurie have a fight at the canal. She kicks him out of the car and he has to walk. From another scene, Terry and Debbie are making out and discover the car has been stolen and they have to walk. The three stumble across each other at the canal (thank God it wasn't the Goat's Head Killer!).
In that way I think it was easier to let a major character "break away" from the group, but then get back with the group in a believable, organic way. And then Terry was afraid Steve would realize Steve's car had been stolen, so that heightened the moment, fed into Terry's story line.
In "More," Terry is off in the jungle and isn't going to run into Steve, who is an insurance agent back in Modesto (note, he does have a "Pharaoh" in his platoon, however).
I remember going to see Karate Kid II and at the beginning, Daniel-San says Ali broke up with him. My friend said something about, "Yeah, they couldn't get Elisabeth Shue for the part." It was the first time I stopped to think that they might actually tailor the script to the actors who had signed on...I just assumed that they followed the natural arc of the story, then begged and pleaded with actors or hired look-alikes.
I mention this because it never occurred to me either that maybe Curt Henderson ended up a writer living in Canada because Richard Dreyfus didn't want to participate. I don't know that he didn't...just saying that those who signed on might have influenced/corrupted what could have been. The more artistic choice, IMO, would have been to set a future date, get the originals to sign on, and do it right.
Failing that, they could have picked one character and done that character's story properly. Terry The Toad...hits the wrong pedal and runs into the Viet Namese Mel's with a tank or something.
On a scale of 1-10? 5.
6/10, it's nowhere near as good as the original but has some nice things in it.
Have you watched it yet?
Norman Vincent Peale: "Stay Alive All Your Life".
I would give it a 3/10 ... the film has some good qualities (the look of the 1960's was captured very well and the war situations in Vietnam were very realistic and the music is good - though not placed in the best of spots,) however that said the narrative and story-telling is horrible (I'm having more fun ragging on the film than anything else.) You need not worry about being emotionally involved in the film because you won't care about the people or anything else, but watch if you have someone who likes to snark at films.
share1. And I gave the original a 7.
share