PopcornTreeCt

I consider myself an avid film fan. I enjoy classic films, foreign films, to even classic foreign films. But I could not make it through American Graffitti. I tried, honestly, I did. But there was absolutely nothing there to keep my attention. Ron Howard, I believe was the all-american boy. With the nice car, pretty girlfriend and bright future. I may be wrong but I couldn't believe that cause he was a bigger dork than Napoleon Dynamite. The movie wasn't funny another reason I couldn't get into it. Richard Dreyfuss was the only character that seemed half interesting but his character didn't do anything. Then I fast-forwarded and watched a scene with Harrison Ford in it. He played a cool character and probably should've been the focus of the movie. This movie is on AFI's 100 Best Films list and it is unbearable to watch. Is there any reason to watch this film?

P.S. THX-1138 was awfully paced and dreadfully boring as well. Considering Star Wars is great I find it strange that his other movies suck so much.

The Infidel

I've never seen it in my life, and have no desire to, to be completely honest. Just not my type of subject matter, I guess.

Mondo Kane

Bo Hopkins is in it.

I love just about everything that Bo appears in. Including More American Graffiti...Well, maybe not that one.

Groucho

Yeah, I was like "d00d, where are the spaceships and droids wtfomgbbq?"

HistoryProf

worst. review. ever.

Tafellappen

I love the film and consider it much superior to Star Wars. Diff'rent Strokes for Diff'rent Folks.

Elldubtoo

True dat.

PopcornTreeCt

0/5

GuessWho

the review can be titled:

Lucas raped my 50's nostalgia

nightmaster

Maybe this is one that doesn't age well for younger viewers. Comparing timelines of American Graffiti to Napoleon Dynamite? Me, I think it's a great movie. The thread creator seems to have wanted this to be something along the lines of a James Dean film?

LiquidSky

American Graffiti is on my list of Top 10 All-Time Favorite Films: ****/****.

AGuyNamedMike

I agree wholeheartedly with nightmaster that this film has limited appeal for the younger people of today (though I am only 37, I guess I'm a comparative codger). It was, I gather, a fairly accurate depiction of the teen culture of the period in that region and I found the characters subtle and compelling. Perhaps a rewatching in the company of someone like me is in order? We could hit pause at key scenes and discuss their meanings, both on the surface as pertained to the subculture depicted and underneath as they conveyed exposition.

Filmmaker

When I first read this thread title, I had a knee-jerk reaction of hostility toward it but, after a reflective moment, I can understand someone having this kind of a reaction to the film. Most essentially, it is (in conventional terms) a nearly plotless movie, and this can be repellant to a certain kind of moviegoer. It is more of a filmed slice of life (like STAND BY ME) than the more traditional heavily-plotted type of movie Hollywood usually produces. In terms of the believability of the Ron Howard character, how is he any different than Paul Walker's character in PLEASANTVILLE? Try to remember, it was a different time--basically, Ron Howard's character represents the "preppie" of the time--I find him entirely believable. Richard Dreyfuss's character is a riot in the film--I can't imagine how you weren't delighted with his reactions throughout the run of his storyline; however, the real comedic gem of the film, for me, is the character of John Milner (Paul LeMat)...he is utterly hysterical and his storyline is my favorite of the film (in spite of the fact that Dreyfuss is one of my all-time favorite actors). Ultimately, I think AMERICAN GRAFFITI's greatest virtue, the quality that makes it endure in the minds of cineastes (like those that made the AFI list), is an intangible--it just so perfectly and richly captures the essence of the time (or so I feel, having been born a decade after the events of the film, he he)--so many films that tackle an historical period (even the recent past, as in this film) feel like they're "putting on a show", but by contrast, AMERICAN GRAFFITI feels like an actual window in time has opened and you're really, truly beholding people and events from 1962. It doesn't feel like you're watching a movie; it feels like you're time-traveling, and I think that's the core of why moviegoers who love this film do--it's verisimilitude.

Oh, and did I mention? It's got a killer soundtrack...

lizard

Filmmaker, I think you have captured it perfectly.

American Graffiti is one of the more original movies ever made. For all the gnashing of teeth over whether the Star Wars movies are, or aren't, any good (they clearly had a major impact on moviemaking), American Graffiti is George Lucas's masterpiece IMHO.

But I can understand why those who have grown up in the last two or three decades might not appreciate it.

jeffkjoe

If you had trouble sitting through that, try sitting through MORE AMERICAN GRAFITTI from 1979.

Fanboy

Does this -- the versimilitude, the whole "time travel" aspect -- then lead anyone else to believe that the status of the film might take a hit in coming years as more and more people to whom the movie speaks, to put this indelicately, die?

If the movie really connects with a generation, and survives less-so on its own artistic merits (as evinced by admitted lack of appeal to younger audiences en-masse), then perhaps it is not so much a great movie as a slice of nostalgia served up hot.

Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass. I'm sure there are many here who love the movie, but does the greatness of the movie exist independently of your love?

Filmmaker

Fanboy, I don't buy your logic because there is a mountain of so-called "classic" films (THE BIRTH OF A NATION, METROPOLIS, GONE WITH THE WIND, BEN-HUR, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the entire canon of Alfred Hitchcock, WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF, ON THE WATERFRONT, WEST SIDE STORY, THE GRADUATE, EASY RIDER, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, THE EXORCIST, CHARIOTS OF FIRE, GHANDI, THE LAST EMPEROR, etc. etc. etc.) that do not hold immediate appeal for today's generation, but to say that these films do not warrant their status as classics is absurd. The fact of the matter is that films cannot forsee the tastes of audiences of the future, so any film over 10-15 years old will simply demand, to one degree or another, a certain willingness on the part of a modern day viewer to unshackle himself/herself of the "baggage" of his/her modern aethetic sensibilities. He/She must surrender himself/herself to the aesthetic of the time so as to appreciate, learn from and value the film being viewed. To fail to give any film that single concession is to constrain the viewer to a woefully slender window of opportunity to behold films that will affect or have meaning to him/her; I daresay such a person (at least from an art appreciation point of view) would make for a rather shallow individual.

Tafellappen

I first saw the film when I was around 14 (I'm almost 20 now) and I loved it immediately. However, despite growing up a few decades removed from the time period, I could still relate to a lot of what was going on in the film.

Filmmaker

Fanboy, though I stand behind what I just wrote, but I realize I may not have essentially addressed your point that filmgoers' recognition of the film's verisimilitude may fade over time, and I have to concede you might be correct, but I just don't know--again, I was born a decade after the events of the film, and didn't even see AMERICAN GRAFFITI until the late '80s, but it has just always struck me as a spot-on window into 1962--again, I can't clarify it; it's an intangible quality to the film. As an example, when comparing the film with, say, Oliver Stone's JFK, which happens in the same period of time (and forgive me for comparing two films as dissimilar in terms of plot as these are), JFK has a distinct feeling of circa 1990' sensibilies "putting on a show" with their representation of the early '60s, whereas AMERICAN GRAFFITI really feels like it was filmed in 1962. Sorry to be vague on the point, but I'm inclined to think this aspect of verisimilitude, similar to EASY RIDER's, will ensure its recognition as a justified classic for decades to come, at least for cineastes, if not general moviegoers...

wendersfan

I think it's by far Lucas' best film, but I'm still not particularly fond of it. It certainly does set a mood and a time, and the soundtrack is indeed great, but I don't think it's that great a film overall.

Filmmaker

Some more examples of this elusive verisimilitude:

DAZED AND CONFUSED--alternately has it and doesn't have it (I've always been irritated by this film--I feel it's a blatant rip-off of AMERICAN GRAFFITI's style)
STAND BY ME--has it
THE WEDDING SINGER--doesn't have it
ROMY AND MICHELE'S HIGH SCHOOL REUINION--doesn't have it
DONNIE DARKO--doesn't have it (but don't get me wrong--I still adore that film)

wendersfan

The Last Picture Show - has it in spades.

So does Summer of Sam.

Filmmaker

wendersfan, I must disagree with your assessment of SUMMER OF SAM--a film with many virtues, but personally, I was never removed from my perception of 1990s actors "playing" at the '70s and especially the 1990s sensibilities of the director behind the lens...

Oh, how about a Jeff Bridges double-feature: TUCKER: A MAN AND HIS DREAMS and SEABISCUIT--both have it.

LiquidSky

I saw it upon it's initial theatrical release in 1973 at age 10. Loved it then, love it now.

LiquidSky

[QUOTE=wendersfan]The Last Picture Show [QUOTE]


Another excellent film.