Sounds like a nostalgia cash-grab infused with present day wokeness. And I wonder if Hollywood will ever stop trying to educate the masses.

I was just thinking, this film had better be funny. It does no justice to the original film if it’s not. Thanks for the heads up.

Does Maurice still work at McDowell's? Did he advance to assistant manager?

@bratface said:

Does Maurice still work at McDowell's? Did he advance to assistant manager?

I don't see a way to hide spoilers, so I'll have to do it the oldfashioned way.

MILD SPOILERS

Maurice still works at McDowell's, but is now part of the McDowell's Zamunda division. In the end credits, the character is just credited as Maurice, but in one of his brief scenes, you can read his McDowell's employee nametag and it says "manager". He's come a long way

END OF MILD SPOILERS

@VobIdem said:

@bratface said:

Does Maurice still work at McDowell's? Did he advance to assistant manager?

I don't see a way to hide spoilers, so I'll have to do it the oldfashioned way.

MILD SPOILERS

Maurice still works at McDowell's, but is now part of the McDowell's Zamunda division. In the end credits, the character is just named as Maurice, but in one of his brief scenes, you can read his McDowell's employee nametag and it says "manager". He's come a long way

END OF MILD SPOILERS

Thanks.

@VobIdem said:

@bratface said:

Does Maurice still work at McDowell's? Did he advance to assistant manager?

I don't see a way to hide spoilers, so I'll have to do it the oldfashioned way.

MILD SPOILERS

Maurice still works at McDowell's, but is now part of the McDowell's Zamunda division. In the end credits, the character is just credited as Maurice, but in one of his brief scenes, you can read his McDowell's employee nametag and it says "manager". He's come a long way

END OF MILD SPOILERS

Wow, I guess that's great for Maurice, if he's a status seeker and of course there's always the issue of earning more $$$.

I remember how Lisa's boyfriend Darryl used to treat Maurice like crap when he walked into the restaurant, just looking at him and saying, "Straw." That was his signal for Maurice to give him a straw for his drink. In my opinion, Darryl was a "bad" representation, as was Lisa's sister. She was perhaps a bit too loose for me.

But of course, they can't all be 100% positive, can they?

@CelluloidFan said:

I remember how Lisa's boyfriend Darryl used to treat Maurice like crap when he walked into the restaurant, just looking at him and saying, "Straw." That was his signal for Maurice to give him a straw for his drink. In my opinion, Darryl was a "bad" representation, as was Lisa's sister. She was perhaps a bit too loose for me.

Oh yeah, Darryl was a self-involved phony, who treated others like crap.

But of course, they can't all be 100% positive, can they?

I suppose not. Especially in a movie where nearly every character is played by an African American actor, some characters just have to play the antagonist role or create some type of conflict.

But both Patrice McDowell and Darryl were lousy people

@VobIdem said:

I suppose not. Especially in a movie where nearly every character is played by an African American actor, some characters just have to play the antagonist role or create some type of conflict.

But both Patrice McDowell and Darryl were lousy people

No, actually, Patrice and Darryl are lousy representations of people... that's why I say they were "bad" representations.

I fail to see what the film being a "black film" full of black actors has to do with there necessarily being negative characters in it...? It sounds like you're holding the "black film" up to a different standard than one would "non-black" films.

@CelluloidFan said:

No, actually, Patrice and Darryl are lousy representations of people... that's why I say they were "bad" representations.

I fail to see what the film being a "black film" full of black actors has to do with there necessarily being negative characters in it...? It sounds like you're holding the "black film" up to a different standard than one would "non-black" films.

Seeing as your reply contained the term "representation", which in modern times is used exclusively to refer to a project including minorities in prominent roles that aren't stereotypical, it's oddly disingenuous of you to reply in this manner

@VobIdem said:

@CelluloidFan said:

No, actually, Patrice and Darryl are lousy representations of people... that's why I say they were "bad" representations.

I fail to see what the film being a "black film" full of black actors has to do with there necessarily being negative characters in it...? It sounds like you're holding the "black film" up to a different standard than one would "non-black" films.

Seeing as your reply contained the term "representation", which in modern times is used exclusively to refer to a project including minorities in prominent roles that aren't stereotypical, it's oddly disingenuous of you to reply in this manner

I disagree. I don't think the term is used exclusively for such projects at all.

@MongoLloyd said:

And I wonder if Hollywood will ever stop trying to educate the masses.

Americans write stories and turn them into movies. These Americans have opinions about the world in which they live. Agree or disagree with their views (civil discourse is a valued part of a free society) but "Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

@MongoLloyd said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

"Hollywood" (which has its conservatives right there alongside its progressives) will not stop facilitating the telling of stories, and it shouldn't.

I would guesstimate the ratio of left leaning members of the Hollywood film industry to conservatives is something like 10 to 1, judging by the content they produce. The issue isn't stories or story telling, but the actual propaganda and "re-imagining" of history we're subjected to. It's subtle in most cases, but it's definite.

While I'm quite convinced the ratio is nowhere near that lopsided, judging by how often someone "comes out of the closet" saying something that is so behind the times it gets them into trouble, I won't fight you on that, quibbling here is not worth our time, IMHO.

I am compelled to quibble over your concern about "propaganda" - for me, when I think about America, I'm of the firm opinion that the overwhelming weight is heavily tipped to false narratives and revised history about the reality of American history in its exploitation of PoC and other marginalized people. If "propaganda" is the problem, the "Hollywood left" is only in contrast because it has begun to fight against the status quo of historic white male dominance.

Isn't Hollywood portrayals of rugged heroes rescuing damsels in distress propaganda? Sure it is - and, if this is an objective conversation, it should be easy to concede that - but most men like that, so they've got noooo problem when Hollywood propagandizes ideas and ideologies that stroke their insecurities. They love to hear Clint Eastwood or James Woods or Bruce Willis or...or...or...express their ideas, no problem there.

But when Hollywood tells a different story, all of a sudden, it's preachy propaganda? GMAFB.

@VobIdem said:

Part rehash, part feminist lecture, part celebration of being black, the sequel to Coming To America felt like multiple things except a comedy.

It was enjoyable seeing Cleo McDowell, Lisa McDowell King Jaffe Joffer, Oha, Randy Watson, etc again but there's very little there to make it must-see. It was more of a walk down memory lane with a bunch of unmemorable new faces along for the ride.

I hope others have a better time watching it, because it was just ok

Come rovinare un bel film con stronzate femministe che tanto piacciono ad Hollywood. Poi alle persone viene da vomitare per questo schifo e vota Trump! Lo voterei solo contro questa immondizia di società amata da Amazon ! BLEAH

@Citefer said:

Come rovinare un bel film con stronzate femministe che tanto piacciono ad Hollywood. Poi alle persone viene da vomitare per questo schifo e vota Trump! Lo voterei solo contro questa immondizia di società amata da Amazon ! BLEAH

Per essere onesti, il problema principale del film è che è mediocre invece di un classico istantaneo, ma sì, ci sono alcune cose femministe in esso

To be fair, the movie's main issue is it's mediocre instead of an instant classic, but yeah there is some feminist stuff in it