Back to the Future Part III - Is it really that bad?

[Banjo]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Yeah, the 2nd is quite a buzzkill.

Hee. Good one.

[Tcan21]

It is a good movie, not at the level of the first two, but still a worthy entry in the series.

[Ruemorgue10]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

I agree the first is the best, followed by the third. The second is so clunky, sloppy, and pointless as to be nearly unwatchable. Lots of *action*, but very little actual narrative action.

Part II is definitely flawed and the most uneven of the 3 (future scenes WAY too campy, alternate '85 scenes WAY too bleak), but I don't think it's unwatchable. The idea of alternate timelines and revisiting the events of part I was intriguing, you gotta admit that. The problem was the lack of focus on one or the other. In other words, great concept, poor execution.

[AKORIS]

Part I is the best

Part II is the weakest but still watcheable

Part III is a good movie, I've never really heard anyone saying they didn't
like it before this thread...

[Offender_Mullet]

Yes, Part III is that bad.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Offender_Mullet

Yes, Part III is that good.

I've always liked it the most, I think, I also enjoy II a lot more than most people do.

[ChadFL]

Back to the Future III is the weakest of the trilogy but still a far above average film IMO.

I still like the 2nd film the most despite the bizarre tragedy that occured when my grandmother took me to see it in 1989 when I was just 8. Early during the film she had a stroke and lost the sight in her left eye permenantly. I never even got to see the film for a couple years because she thought the film was cursed.

[ZoetMB]

If watching a love story puts your masculinity in doubt, you won't like Part III. If you want a movie that's all action and no heart, you won't like Part III.
If you hated the love relationship in the Star Wars PT, you won't like Part III.

But if you have more balanced view of story arcs and themes, I believe you will like Part III. The critics were split when it was released theatrically. IIRC, Ebert thought it was just "okay", but the New York Times critic thought it was far superior to II, as I do.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

If watching a love story puts your masculinity in doubt, you won't like Part III. If you want a movie that's all action and no heart, you won't like Part III.
If you hated the love relationship in the Star Wars PT, you won't like Part III.

But if you have more balanced view of story arcs and themes, I believe you will like Part III. The critics were split when it was released theatrically. IIRC, Ebert thought it was just "okay", but the New York Times critic thought it was far superior to II, as I do.

I enjoy the Star Wars PT trilogy, but the love relationship in those films are inferior to the love story in BTTF III. Not in concept or in execution really, but more in delivery. Both can be heavy handed at times, though. I just find Doc is easier to root for in the love department than Anikan. But your point is correct, you have to let your inner kid live a little and just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[DVDFreaker]

I thought part 3 was awful and I do not watch it much, the sequel is the best though

[Al_The_Strange]

I like them all equally, practically as one giant three-part movie.

[Suntory_Times]

I think each one got progressivly orse. That bieng said even the third one is alot of fun, it just doesn't compete with how much fun the first film is.

[bigkatninja]

They all are awesome btf is classic movie goodness. If you hate on any of the three your a nutbar! lol I said nutbar!

[Adam_ME]

Part III has always been my least favorite. I saw it opening day when I was 12 and even at that age I was distracted by several gaping plotholes:

1) If the younger Doc in 1955 found out he got shot by Buford "Don't Call Me Mad Dog" Tannen 30 years later, why would the older Doc be clueless about it once Marty went back to 1885 to rescue him?

2) Why does Maggie McFly who has no genetic link to the Baines family look like Lorraine?

3) Why does Doc spend the entire first two films ranting about how it's too dangerous to know too much about one's future and making any changes could destroy the entire space-time continuum only to basically tell Marty and Jennifer to ignore all that in the final scene of the third movie?

4) How did no one in Hill Valley suspect Doc(and "Clint Eastwood") of hijacking the train? Doc said out loud in the bar with everyone listening that that's where they were headed. So after commandeering and destroying that train, he just waltzes back into town and nobody says a word?

And there are other aspects of the film that bugged me. Like the love story with Doc and Clara. That was pretty cheesy. Ultimately what makes it somewhat enjoyable is the chemistry between Fox and Lloyd, the always entertaining Tom Wilson, the epic train sequence, and the fact that it does successfully(plotholes notwithstanding) wrap up the trilogy.

[binarymelon]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

Part III has always been my least favorite. I saw it opening day when I was 12 and even at that age I was distracted by several gaping plotholes:

1) If the younger Doc in 1955 found out he got shot by Buford "Don't Call Me Mad Dog" Tannen 30 years later, why would the older Doc be clueless about it once Marty went back to 1885 to rescue him?

2) Why does Maggie McFly who has no genetic link to the Baines family look like Lorraine?

3) Why does Doc spend the entire first two films ranting about how it's too dangerous to know too much about one's future and making any changes could destroy the entire space-time continuum only to basically tell Marty and Jennifer to ignore all that in the final scene of the third movie?

4) How did no one in Hill Valley suspect Doc(and "Clint Eastwood") of hijacking the train? Doc said out loud in the bar with everyone listening that that's where they were headed. So after commandeering and destroying that train, he just waltzes back into town and nobody says a word?

And there are other aspects of the film that bugged me. Like the love story with Doc and Clara. That was pretty cheesy. Ultimately what makes it somewhat enjoyable is the chemistry between Fox and Lloyd, the always entertaining Tom Wilson, the epic train sequence, and the fact that it does successfully(plotholes notwithstanding) wrap up the trilogy.

1. Alternate time lines. Makes the time travel paradox a moot point. Without it the whole trilogy would fall apart.

2. Well they couldn't continue with the joke of him waking up to his mother if they didn't. A good choice in my opinion.

3. Love conquers all? Maybe that was Doc's lesson learned.

4. I'm trying to remember. Do we even know what Doc did after Marty returned to 1985?

5. Most love stories are a little cheesy, but I don't see how it affected the chemistry between Marty and Doc. It allowed Marty to become the voice of reason.

[Adam_ME]

Originally Posted by binarymelon

1. Alternate time lines. Makes the time travel paradox a moot point. Without it the whole trilogy would fall apart.

4. I'm trying to remember. Do we even know what Doc did after Marty returned to 1985?

1) I don't buy alternate timelines as an explanation. When Marty told 1955 Doc about the Libyans, 1985 Doc was able to take precautions to avoid getting killed. Why would the same logic not apply to 1985 Doc in BTTF III? Him being in 1885 makes no difference. He's still the older Doc who found out about Buford Tannen 30 years earlier in his life.

4) Presumably, Doc and Clara returned to town after the train crashed and Marty went back to 1985. And even if they didn't, you would think the authorities would be after him for hijacking the train. Obviously they knew "Clint Eastwood" was involved since they renamed the ravine after him. It wouldn't be too difficult to figure out who his accomplice was.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Ruemorgue10

Part II is definitely flawed and the most eneven of the 3 (future scenes WAY too campy, alternate '85 scenes WAY too bleak), but I don't think it's unwatchable. The idea of alternate timelines and revisiting the events of part I was intriguing, you gotta admit that. The problem was the lack of focus on one or the other. In other words, great concept, poor execution.

I guess that I more or less agree.

I'm actually a really, really big fan of the entire Trilogy, and I love all 3 movies and kind of look at them all as one huge movie.

I certainly don't hate any of the movies, and for me they are the kind of movies that I can watch at pretty much any time and not get tired of them. There has never been a time that I can recall where the movies have been on TV or something and I've thought to myself, "I really don't feel like watching this." If I am flipping channels on TV, and one of the movies is on (even though I have them on DVD and BD), and there's nothing else on that I specifically want to watch, I'll likely stop and watch it.



Having said all of that, I agree that Part II is kind of the most 'uneven' of the bunch, and really doesn't work very well as a stand-alone movie. Part I you can watch and not need to see the others (duh). And to some extent, part III even works as it's own story. It's really just the very beginning in 1955 and maybe some of the stuff at the very end that would really be particularly confusing to anyone who hadn't seen the others.

But, that's almost part of what I like about Part II. Yeah, it's not a great stand-alone movie, but IMO it's a very interesting second chapter of a Trilogy.

Part II is sort of an interesting conundrum amongst the entire series. Back when it came out, I found the future segment very exciting (particularly the hoverboards). As time has gone on, while I still find some of the fictional-futuristic technology interesting, it does come across a bit more campy and a rather dated. It is obviously a view of the future from the perspective of the 1980s, and in many ways this 'dates' the film to the 80s more so than any of the segments in any of the movies that actually takes place in 1985. And the 2015 segment (for better or for worse) is one of the most interesting to look back at since it's obviously a very inaccurate view of the future.... a "future" that (as far as the year it takes place in) isn't that far off from being the present and then eventually the past.

The alternate '85 is dark and bleak, I kind of agree there. Still an interesting part.

But the 3rd act when they return to 1955 is what Part II is all about. That was just pure fun (the 2 Martys, 2 Docs, etc). That was some really clever and brilliant filmmaking, IMO.




As for the main subject at hand... Part III... I really don't see why some people (as described by the OP) have this venomous hate for it. I feel it has the same fun and excitement of the previous films.

I think the biggest thing working against it is that in many ways it is kind of a rehash of the first movie, just that the specific circumstances have changed slightly They are 'stuck' in 1885 and are trying to leave (just like Marty was 'stuck' in 1955 in the first movie). In the first movie, they couldn't power the time circuits without plutonium.... this time they can't power the internal combusion engine to make the car move on it's own at all. In both cases they have to do something at a specific time to get the car back to it's time (in Part I harness the lightening bolt, in Part III hijack the train when it comes through town). In the first movie Marty's existent is endangered when he interfere's with his parent's meeting... this time it is endangered because of his run ins with Bufford and his issues with being called chicken/yellow.

So, in that sense, I can see where Part III seems a little less original than the other two. Even with Part II's 'weirdness' and how unbalanced it was, at least it was more original than III.

But still, I really don't hate III by any means. It's still an all around fun movie, and I enjoy watching it.



If anything, the thing about the sequels that kind of bugged me more than anything was how they tacked on the issue of Marty being angry when being called 'chicken'. This was something that didn't happen in the first movie and they came up with for the sequels. There really was no build up to it (it's just suddenly an issue right from the get-go in Part II with his run-in with Griff), and it just comes completely out of left field. I think the introduction of this issue really could have been handled better.

[The_Basterd]

I watched it. I really enjoyed it! But yeah, least favorite, but again it was still good!
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Darth Anakin

I've always liked it the most, I think, I also enjoy II a lot more than most people do.

I really like II as well..the future 2015 take was great when I first saw it as a kid. Now I look at it and all the cars are is a pre-fast and the furious body kit lol.

[binarymelon]

Originally Posted by Adam_ME

1) I don't buy alternate timelines as an explanation. When Marty told 1955 Doc about the Libyans, 1985 Doc was able to take precautions to avoid getting killed. Why would the same logic not apply to 1985 Doc in BTTF III? Him being in 1885 makes no difference. He's still the older Doc who found out about Buford Tannen 30 years earlier in his life.

4) Presumably, Doc and Clara returned to town after the train crashed and Marty went back to 1985. And even if they didn't, you would think the authorities would be after him for hijacking the train. Obviously they knew "Clint Eastwood" was involved since they renamed the ravine after him. It wouldn't be too difficult to figure out who his accomplice was.

1. The timelines were explained right in the second movie. The Doc that went back to 1885 was the original timeline (Part I) Doc and the one that found about being killed by Mad Dog was the alternate timeline (Part II) Doc.

4. Everything you're describing is what you feel SHOULD have happened. Based on the outcomes of the movie, it definitely did not.