Misguided criticisms

Like most I really enjoyed the original. When it came to my attention that there was a sequel, i braced myself for a poor cash in, on a stripped down budget. I was pleasantly surprised to find that this was'nt the case. It's a quality film. Admittingly it is'nt as good as AG, mainly becouse the events were not centralised around one likeable character (Dreyfuss). But what you get is a very watchable film, despite its sequential incohesiveness.

With that flaw in mind it does rely on the viewer having seen the the original and been taken through the character development there. But for me it works as what it intended to be, a sequel.

I find some of the criticisms thrown at this film in these boards a bit misguided.

I get the impression that many dont like the setting and content of the film. Essentially wanting another installment of innocent high school hot rodding and pranks as in AG. Of course its a nice place and period of time to escape to, but whilst that might be a fun indulgence to watch it, i would'nt think that it would be so motivating for script writers, actors and production crew to re hash it all over again. Im quite thankfull that they did'nt. It would of probably pulled down the first film. But in light of the criticisms i have been reading , it's like this. The characters, the politics and the whole country has moved on. If as a viewer you have a problem doing that too, then dont watch it.

In MAG we get a development of the characters lives, through the events taking place in America at a later time. The film is evocative of its own period just as the first one was to it's own. Thats why i have a bit of a problem with people labelling it anti authortarian/establishment. I truly have a hard time grasping where that arguement is coming from. So what if it is? There were some major social and political issues during that period. If your sense of security is that easily rocked by this film, then maybe you need to label yourself basket case and stick to the safety confines of watching disney productions, whilst constantly reassuring yourself that everything is good in the world and always has been. Or maybe i got it wrong and it's a suggestion that it was the moral duty of the citizens to support the governments vietnam war policy. In which case the term 'basket case' still applies.

(*SPOILERS AHEAD*)
(*If YOU HAVENT SEEN THE FILM BUT LOVED THE ORIGINAL. TAKE MY WORD FOR IT AND WATCH IT. THEN COME BACK AND READ THE REST OF THIS POST*)

The choice of scenarios for the characters in this film seemed to be purposely tailored through the scripting to correspond with their already defined personalities. Toads girlfriend in AG has lovable traits. But those traits being that she is incredibly gullible and suggestive also forcast her future as being the potential victim of someones abuse and control. In this film she (arguably) grows not to accept the status quo and thinks on her own terms by meeting with the counter culture/political activist musicians (Country Joe + Fish i believe). On a similar tangent, Ron Howard and his wifes character find their conformist values shaken with the conduct of the authorities dealing with the anti vietnam demonstrations.

Talking of Vietnam, interesting point made about Toads storyline cheapening the reality and cost of that war on american society. I probably agree, although Toads character was set out as a vehicle of comedy relief in the first film and its understandable that they would'nt want to change that. It's just unfortunate that his life was already scripted to wander into the most dramatic and emotionally loaded setting of them all, and inadvertantly cheapened it. I suspect the death of the Pharoah guy was the scripts attempt to acknowledge the wars impact. I always thought that the film insinuated at the close that Toad got out alive and lived off everyone's rader somewhere in Europe. That might be my memory failing me, someone clarify.

Someone (stupidly) suggested that the handling of Milners death was clumsy. His character nearly stole the show from Dreyfuss in the first one. The viewers emotional bond to him was nicely manipulated with his near death at the drag race, as we know his death is impending somewhere in the film. That was a tense scene. We did'nt get the crash spectacular, guts and all death in the film. Instead we got his the last day of his life. Meeting the Norweigen girl (God she was beautiful). We all fell in love with her just like he did, and then we got the sense of loss from a senseless death. As movie characters deaths go, his was handled really well.

Lastly there is the exclusion of Dreyfuss'es character. Probably due to outside contract issues. Does'nt matter to me. The first film was all about his emotional upheavel of growing up and moving on. It's what he chose to do at the end and it rings true that it stayed that way by being excluded from MAG. Even though he was likeable and entertaining on screen.

Well there you go, thats my limited case put forward for this film. Detractions such as the split screen (it was crap), dont really pull the film down to hard for me. In the light of all the good points about this film, something so trivial is just pointing out that the film is going over your head.