Lol. Yep… if you watch a lot of these (which I have), they both give away spoilers - and even the clips they showed did too. I’m very surprised the movie companies at the time (80’s-90’s) weren’t more strict.
@@Socogames-q4sNBC dramas are the worst. Like back when this is us or Parenthood or whatever we're still in the air they would always show you the next week on and literally show you the last scene and the climactic moment.
First movie circled on Marty and his parents, the rest of what you said was accurate. And they somehow got away with never truly developing Marty's character in the whole trilogy.
@@JerrySaraviaCinema1895 I think he was developed. In the first movie his arc was to overcome fear of believing he was bad at playing guitar and in 2 and 3 he learns that he needs to take responsibility for his own choices, otherwise he might screw up his future. One of the final scenes where he refuses to race Needles shows he’s changed and grown. Also, he develops from a person who doesn’t seem very interested about his family in the first movie to caring a lot about them in the second movie.
The main problem with BTTF2 has nothing to do with the film itself, but the marketing behind it. Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale explained that Universal wanted to present the second film as standing alone, when it was actually the first half of a two-part sequel to the original. That's why the "to be concluded..." exists at the end, to let people know, "Hey, its not over yet."
This is true. They even filmed both movies back to back and at the end of part 2 you see a bunch of finished footage for part 3. (I remember when I saw it in theaters, everyone erupted in applause. I still have my "Back to the Future 2" promotional T-shirt they handed out from when I saw it)
I mean I thought this was pretty much well known by the public. In fact they even mentioned it as you mentioned at the end of the trailer with all the clips ready to go. It was all over the media that there would be a third version where they're in the old west. At least that's my recollection
Love Ebert's line for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, "If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together."
This is my personal favourite of all the movies. I do love the other two, but there’s a magic to part II for me, and I think that’s because it doesn’t slow down. It’s constantly going and it has the wacky Time Travel antics that I love in this genre. Plus, the third act was just ingenious.
@@lunaticfringe896 As an adult I agree. However at the time, FLYING CARS & HOVER BOARDS automatically made this movie 'better' than the original! Now I'm just wondering how/why this 12 year old video has suddenly been 'promoted' on many people's 'feeds'?
@@StreetPreacherr On the surface, it might seem nitpicky to point out the lack of accuracy to BTTF’s depiction of the “future”, but to me this outdated aspect is a major contrast to the original film’s timelessness.
@@cHeStEr5434 You're seriously gonna trash a movie for its *self-conscious* retrofuturism? "Lack of accuracy"?? LMAFO. I kinda suspect the filmmakers knew we weren't gonna all get flying cars THAT RUN ON FUSION (plus hoverboards) in less than 30 years. The only reason they chose 2015 is because the previous movie was 30 years in the past, so they wanted to do one 30 years in the future for aesthetics, to be symmetrical. (And also because Biff and the other characters needed to not be overly old.)
I've seen all 3 movies several times. For me the first is always the best. I love "Back to the Future III," but the 2nd one I really never liked. Used to always watch Siskel & Ebert and always agreed with Siskel, but rarely Ebert.
It's good but not as a sequel. It feels way more cheesy compare to the first. And the sequel Back to the Future 3 is pretty much feels like a made for television movie. It all went down after the first movie in my opinion.
This movie ruled. I loved part one, but I found this one better simply for the originality factor. How many sequels go back into the first movie from a different perspective making it fresh? Although there are some minor plot holes (nothing that cripples the movie) there will never be a movie as ingenious as Back to the Future II. Some people were put off by the darker tone of the film, but that helped differentiate it from its predecessor (much like Empire Strikes Back from Star Wars). This movie also called Miami having a baseball team. Genius!!!! How many academy awards did this win? 5? 6?
I loved the scene where Marty jumped off Biff's casino and comes back up on the Delorean and once again the music is top notch in this movie (too bad that I lost my blue-ray BTTF collection)
@ancient internet troll dude, kudos to your reading comprehension. I explained why in my brief paragraph, but you thought you had such a good zinger you didn't bother to read the whole thing. Unfiltered hilarity sir.
I was raised on these films. The first one was my go-to-movie pretty much 3 times a week as far back as I can remember. I don't find the plot of Part II confusing in the least, but that's probably because I've seen it so many times. I like to look at the trilogy as all part of one big story instead of judging them individually. But even if I was forced to, I would give all 3 of them 5/5 stars. Call it nostalgia if you wish; these movies resonate with me so much, and they're a huge part of my life. They are what began my obsession with film.
You're not alone. I also see them as a 6 hour movie. Back in the day I wanted to make it: a 6-hour BTTF movie cut, joining the movies where they meet at the ends and beginnings with one opening credits and one end credits on an EP/SLP VHS Tape. Never had a double-decked VHS Player to do that, but I might do it now in my PC.
I feel the exact same BTTFMovie...saw the first one as kid on home video in 1986, I actually watched it once a day for 8 months straight at one point when I was 8/9 years old......Part II I love aswell, gets better each time I see it
As a 9 year old when I first saw it, 2 was my fav of the trilogy. 3 my least favourite. Now 2 is probably last and 3 much loved now because of Doc's love story.
2nd isn't that far off. It's just very different. It's the one that focuses most on the actual time travel and paradoxes and the least on romance. The third is a bit inferior but still a good movie.
Siskel missed the point, they were making BTTFIII at the same time which did have a lot of the same heart as the first and so Zemeckis and co. wanted to just have some fun with time travel with part II.
These people talk about Back to the Future so casualy, like it is just another movie, so amazing to see that, today it is like those movies are benchmark for classics
Back to the future 2 was very creative. I first saw it in Hong Kong, and at the end, when Marty surprises Doc Brown and says "I'm back, back from the future," the audience collectively gasped at the remarkable creativity of the story. I wish the critics would notice how fun and creative films can be. Roger Ebert gets it here.
Not nearly as great as the first but still I enjoy it, I love Lloyd as Doc Brown took the delorean concept into new heights & racing through time to change things.
I remember Barry Norman on BBC1 being totally baffled too. How is it that 10-year-olds like me get it immediately but 50-year-old critics are like :-O ?
This movie did quite well at the box office. Siskel was a little bit of a grinch, not understanding what the film was for - calling it "noisy" and "unpleasant" where it "doesn't mean anything to you." It was not trying to be the first film, it was trying to be entertaining - and on that level - it succeeded.
Another problem with the sequels is that they weren't planned. I guess after the success of the first film, they had to come up with sequels, instead of already having worked out the sequels while finishing the first story.
I have to agree this one is more convulted and less well written. It doesn't have that fun 1950s nostalgia or innocence. It has a few interesting ideas but the original is just sublime and didn't need 2 sequels.
@goldenheart Oh they mentioned the effects somewhat Siskel called it a gadget filled picture. You have 3-4 mins per segment in a syndicated broadcast that lasts 20 mins plus commercials they can't cover everything.
I remember when I saw this movie in theaters back in 1989 I thought the movie was going to take place only in the future (as teased at the end of the first movie). Because there was no Internet, you would go to the movies with little knowledge of what you were going to see. The movie delightfully caught me off guard with the turns and twists. That is what the Russo brothers are trying to do with Endgame by not showing anything from the film. I hope it will deliver in a similar way.
A good sequel is supposed to give you what you got in the first film plus MORE and things you did not expect........Well..........I LOVED this movie its in my top 5. I LOVE that the third act is the third act of the first film, but seen from a different perspective. I thought it was very creative and visually very well done....Acting wise, not so much, but its a comedy!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do agree that without Crispin Glover we are losing out, but his character would not have played that big a role in the film anyways, perhaps it would have been different if he had returned but all in all this was a great sequel. Better than Jaws 2, Iron man 2, Starwars 2.........but that's not saying much, we all know what a steaming stink ball that was..............
I'm very fond of the original but I did like this one a lot more. I enjoyed the glaring contrast between that cheerful future and dystopian 1985 once Biff came to power and found the film to be one hell of a fun thrill ride. Plus Marty has the coolest hat ever.
My Preference: 1) Back to the Future Part III 2) Back to the Future 3) Back to the Future Part II Doc has always felt like a kindred spirit to me and seeing him finally find love and raise a family... well, it gets me every time.
For me, part 2 lands somewhere in the middle of Siskel and Ebert's opinions. It's still an entertaining ride, but it lacks the heart of the 1st and resolution of the 3rd. It's also aged the least well, and making Biff a cold blooded psychopath changed the tone for the worse.
The second film was so much cooler to me as a child, the future scenes had a science fiction charm that I had never seen. It was very "realistic" to me as a vision of the future, as opposed to things like Star Wars which were cool as a fantasy, but without any "realism" as it were. The framing in a small town with familiar brand names and cool flying cars seemed to me what the future really looked like, and no film has ever done that before or probably ever will, even though I was only 12 when it came out. To this day, even seeing the film through an adults eyes, and seeing all the cheesy effects, I can still remember what the film looked like through a kid's eyes, and there is still a magic there after all these years. Plus my dad worked for Pizza Hut and brought home all kinds of cool props like Doc Brown's crazy elastic sunglasses. The third film was a disappointment afterwards though.
That's really interesting because in the commentary on the DVD for the film, the creators Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis specifically said that every movie that has ever tried to predict the future got it wrong, so what they were going to do instead is just make a big joke out of everything, (such as Jaws 19 or needing $50 to buy a freaking pepsi due to outrageous inflation, or having the japanese pretty much ruling the tech/business world) so that when they inevitably got everything wrong, they could at least point to it and say "we weren't being serious, it was just a joke". Though...I have to admit I'm still waiting for Nike power laces, hover boards by Mattel, and flying DeLoreans. I think I might start wearing my pants inside out just for fun. :P Edit: I saw the other day a "Kids React" video where they did the original gameboy and the original walkman. Some of the kids complained about how involved it was to turn it on, push buttons, etc. All I could think of was the line "You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy!"
wiremessiah I know someone built their own power lace shoes...and I know nike came out with a limited edition shoe that was designed from the movie, but I'm pretty sure they were manual and it was only for appearance.
Gene is ultimately arguing preferences, and I prefer the frenetic scifi/comedy of Part 2 than the heartfelt drama of 1 and 3. BttF2 is really similar to Who Framed Roger Rabbit (another 80s Zemeckis movie, with Christopher Lloyd). Parts 1 and 3, while benefiting from better character development, are kind of restrained. Part 2 takes her glasses off and lets her hair down
Very few sequels can top the original...this is definitely one of them. But Ebert was very accurate here, we judge it for what it is, not in direct comparison to the first one. That first one was so captivating mostly due to its originality and "heart". How many films before or even after had a script centered around a mother crushing on her son in a strange time warp? Unless you include porn...never! You cannot get any more clever than that. But in the second one, the effort was there. I liked it when I first saw it but didn't necessarily love it, like #1. However, now that we are "in the future", I am falling in love with part 2. Not too many movies still keep me on the edge of my seat when I know exactly what will happen. It is fun in a zany, fast-paced way and now a classic!
Back to the Future 2 is one of the most loved movies ever. The center piece to one of the best trilogy's ever. Stands the test of time. Where is Ebert now.
This was a good movie. But the first one was All Time great. These guys both had it right, in their reviews. You decide whether it's good enough to enjoy.
I didn't think it was noisy and dull. Well, there is a little bit of noise in the alternate hellish 1985, but that was the point. Biff was getting his vengeance on the McFly family in this one by stealing the almanac and going back in time when he found out about the time machine. It reawakened it in him.
Agree. The second film just rushes into the plot which is much more convulted. The first film spent about 20 minutes showing us the life of our protagonist and how all his dreams and frustration later pay off at the end, you have the heart of the story being the relationship with both Doc Brown saving his life and his two parents, realising they were once young and romantic too. The second film has a messier story, they couldn't get all the original cast back, the young cast are starting to get too old to play teenagers, it's a bit all over the place storywise, present future, present, past, they jump in the car like every 10 minutes to a new timeline.
Part II lacked a sense of focus. The first film took place entirely in 1955 and was about meeting your parents when they are your age. Time travel was just a mechanism to help that happen. This is all about what can go wrong with time travel, and undoes the redemption of the first film. Marty is easily bated by being called "chicken," which somehow nobody thought to call him in the first film, even though Biff and Griff now think to do it. Biff himself appeared to have turned over a new leaf, but now he's been nursing his resentment for 60 years, which makes George look like a fool for letting him stay in his life. Is this move about the future? No, less than half of it takes place there. Is it about a nightmarish present? Again no, same reason. Is it about 1955? No. And a better movie is playing in the background. The best that can be said about this part is that it inspired Avengers: Endgame.
You come a little close to part of the truth there--you can make the case for part 1 being a better movie. I don't agree, but you can make the case and I'd definitely respect that. Both are great movies. But here is what you can't deny: part 2 was far more revolutionary... no one had done branching timelines or a meta-story like that before, not to my recollection. It inspired not just some overhyped superhero crap, but an entire generation of movie and TV sci fi writers to have the confidence to get more complicated (and interesting) with their time travel plots, and for that I am quite grateful. I do fully respect anyone who likes part 1 over part 2; it's got some great stuff like the absolutely fantastic ending, and of course 2's meta-story relies on 1. But it's nonsense to complain about part 2 having a "lack of focus". You're the second commenter here to say that. No, it's just a VERY DIFFERENT STORY---but it's actually *far* *more* focused than part 1 ever dreamt of being... with its 1950s schmaltz that lingers too long and just a few too many campy side-plots like the "don't call me chicken" running gag you reference. The focus of Part 2 is very clear: find out what the hell happened and then reverse it. It's briefly a nighmare-mystery and then once Marty learns what's up it turns into a unique caper movie (with strong thread of screwball comedy consistently there during the somewhat dark plot) to retrieve the almanac. If you want period piece parodies... I mean, there have been hundreds made. Part 1's 1955 sendup is pretty average, I'd say. Part 3's western stuff was extremely lazy indeed, made worse with the fanfiction-style love affair. But part was not *about* 2 the future, nor was it *about* Marty's insipid family dramas. Unlike the other two movies, in part 2 these things were relatively minor side plots that had relevance only to the very start of the movie. After this introductory stuff, part 2 become a very clear and focused story, and also a far more original one. That much is not arguable. What *is* arguable is whether you prefer the original, fast-paced, slightly dark around the edges comedy-caper plot of part 2 vs. part 1's endless 1950s schmalt and sitcomlike family dramas with a little more Oedipus than normal, for those who like that sorta thing .(...plus its great Marty-Doc dynamic culminating in a fantastic ending, granted. I can't argue with Part 1 having the best ending.)
Back to the Future is a great movie, extremely creative and precisely what the second movie should have been - about the dangers of time travel...not supposed to have same tone as the original, but that doesn't mean better or worse, just different...still not as entertaining as it could have been as sequels like Empire and Temple of Doom, but still, a damn good sequel :)
I think the series pulled off a unique realism in the first film, despite the fantasy elements. The second movie lost that realism when it had Michael J. Fox play everyone in his family.
Its plot is complex. And it does make sense. In fact, it deserves props in my opinion for being so complex and still making sense. What was so ridiculous that you couldn't take it seriously.
I like the whole BTF triology, but BTF 2 is my least favorite of the three movies. First is the best, third one is fun and entertaining, and this one, is too all over the place
Sure, it's dark, but it's a classic. Love love loved it. I think this series is great for a lot of reasons; one of which is you can ask 3 people which of the 3 films they like best and get 3 different answers.
BTTF 2 is the best in the trilogy. It's the only one where the focus is on time travel. It has darkness to it and much larger in scope than the other two. I think Ebert gets that, and I also agree more with him about BTTF 3 than Siskel.
Yet another review from these guys I disagree with. They didn't even mention the amazing cutting edge effects that added to the story in a huge way. It was interesting to watch though, so I thumbs upped the video.
I like part 2 the most out of the entire trilogy...to make a.sequel that plays with parts of the first, inserts mcfly right back into the original, is genius...truly a great film
@cHeStEr5434 I disagree...never found it cluttered more overflowing with creativity. But then again I love amazing Spiderman 2...so, knowing that, I admit that what I love may not align with most. But thanks for the reply.
I didn't enjoy it as much as the first, but the part where Marty starts messing with the past from BTTF1, then gets in Biff's car to steal back the almanac, that all made up for the movie's flaws. And I loved Old Biff's argument with Young Biff ("Now, why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here!")
2:49 "the father isn't even really there" Crispin Glover declined the repeat role, so the producers put a different actor in a terrible-looking prosthetic face. Glover sued (and won) for using his likeness without pay, but his career suffered as a consequence.
Siskel says the father isn't even there in this movie- It's interesting we know some of the reason now. Crispin Glover declined to reprise his role and even won a lawsuit against the makers of this movie. A lot of times you make the movie you can, not the movie you really want...
I agree that it isn’t as good as the first one, but I enjoyed it for going bonkers for how much time travel was done throughout the movie, so I agree with Roger on that end.
This was a really good one but Back to the Future 3 I just never really could get into the thing about doc Falling in Love with that chick from what's eating Gilbert Grape
Nah, introducing Clara was a nice touch. She felt much more real than any new character in the second film, and her and Doc had good chemistry. Plus, their relationship helped flesh out Doc’s character a bit more, showing that he’s more than just an eccentric scientist - I like how near the end he feels conflicted about whether he should do what his mind says (go back to 1985 with Marty) or his heart (stay in the old west with Clara).
@@cHeStEr5434 She was pure fanfiction tripe and if there was any doubt that her subplot was the product of hacks with a lazy fanfiction mindset, they actually bring her back just to show off their frickin' KIDS in a flying train. Clara could've been a nice touch if there was any point at all to her character. I don't mind character development, but it needs to actually fit into the plot. It's a movie--not a 5 day per week soap opera. There's a very limited amount of time. Throwing in the love interest that had NOTHING to do with the rest of the story and then showing off their kids and crap is just the writers' way of saying they're completely out of ideas.
I can understand why some didnt like it but it is the middle chapter of the trilogy so it kinda stands out abit more as the uneven 'darker' chapter. Personally I think its underrated.
@@cineMADvocate No, I vote you as least likely to understand what "underrated" means in this reply chain. @NepperCat is correct; although part 1 was an extremely good movie, way too many people downplay part 2 on the basis of cheap complaints about 'plot holes' (nevermind that 1 had more) or not liking the relatively brief retrofuture sequence at the start of the movie, while overlooking the *two* VERY original concepts of telling a metastory based on a previous movie and also the whole concept of a branching timeline time travel movie, which seems simple now but back then was interesting and exciting and I don't think had been done before then. In terms of innovation (and also just pure madcap fun), part 2 is the superior movie. I can understand liking part 1 better but tons of people put part 2 waaaay down I think out of some embarrassment that they liked the flying cars as a kid. But it's actually a far more intelligent movie than part 1 with its disappearing-picture gag and its 50s schmaltz dripping from everything. (Granted, part 1 had the best ending of them all.)
I always love how this movie actually became somewhat of a cult classic. Every year it gets more and more love.
I like how Roger completely spoils the movie by giving everything away in 5 seconds
That’s how most trailers and Facebook are now
@@Socogames-q4s 9iuup
Lol. Yep… if you watch a lot of these (which I have), they both give away spoilers - and even the clips they showed did too. I’m very surprised the movie companies at the time (80’s-90’s) weren’t more strict.
except he didn't lol clueless kid
@@Socogames-q4sNBC dramas are the worst. Like back when this is us or Parenthood or whatever we're still in the air they would always show you the next week on and literally show you the last scene and the climactic moment.
First movie circled around the parents. Second circled around Biff. Third circled around Doc.
Thumbs down.
First movie circled on Marty and his parents, the rest of what you said was accurate. And they somehow got away with never truly developing Marty's character in the whole trilogy.
@@JerrySaraviaCinema1895 I think he was developed. In the first movie his arc was to overcome fear of believing he was bad at playing guitar and in 2 and 3 he learns that he needs to take responsibility for his own choices, otherwise he might screw up his future. One of the final scenes where he refuses to race Needles shows he’s changed and grown.
Also, he develops from a person who doesn’t seem very interested about his family in the first movie to caring a lot about them in the second movie.
Yes we know thank you 🤦🏻♂️
12/15/22
2nd and 3rd not as good
The main problem with BTTF2 has nothing to do with the film itself, but the marketing behind it. Robert Zemeckis & Bob Gale explained that Universal wanted to present the second film as standing alone, when it was actually the first half of a two-part sequel to the original. That's why the "to be concluded..." exists at the end, to let people know, "Hey, its not over yet."
This is true. They even filmed both movies back to back and at the end of part 2 you see a bunch of finished footage for part 3. (I remember when I saw it in theaters, everyone erupted in applause. I still have my "Back to the Future 2" promotional T-shirt they handed out from when I saw it)
Literally no one considered this a "problem" back in the day.
I mean I thought this was pretty much well known by the public. In fact they even mentioned it as you mentioned at the end of the trailer with all the clips ready to go. It was all over the media that there would be a third version where they're in the old west.
At least that's my recollection
"Sorry guys, you're just too damn loud."
darn
It's shame that both of them won't be alive in the real 2015.
Well, Roger came close.
It's almost 2020 now.
It's 2020 now.
They're not missing anything.
@@bobkerr2755 Probably because all of the films keep getting delayed due to COVID-19.
Back to the Future is too noisy. I can't imagine what Gene Siskel would if thought of the Transformers movies!
Or Armageddon
@@k1productions87 Siskel was alive when Armageddon came out. He actually gave that a thumb up. The review is up on UA-cam.
Love Ebert's line for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, "If you want to save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together."
This is my personal favourite of all the movies. I do love the other two, but there’s a magic to part II for me, and I think that’s because it doesn’t slow down. It’s constantly going and it has the wacky Time Travel antics that I love in this genre. Plus, the third act was just ingenious.
Are you kidding me?
Part I is the best by far....
@@lunaticfringe896 As an adult I agree.
However at the time, FLYING CARS & HOVER BOARDS automatically made this movie 'better' than the original!
Now I'm just wondering how/why this 12 year old video has suddenly been 'promoted' on many people's 'feeds'?
@@StreetPreacherr On the surface, it might seem nitpicky to point out the lack of accuracy to BTTF’s depiction of the “future”, but to me this outdated aspect is a major contrast to the original film’s timelessness.
@@cHeStEr5434 You're seriously gonna trash a movie for its *self-conscious* retrofuturism? "Lack of accuracy"?? LMAFO. I kinda suspect the filmmakers knew we weren't gonna all get flying cars THAT RUN ON FUSION (plus hoverboards) in less than 30 years.
The only reason they chose 2015 is because the previous movie was 30 years in the past, so they wanted to do one 30 years in the future for aesthetics, to be symmetrical. (And also because Biff and the other characters needed to not be overly old.)
I've seen all 3 movies several times. For me the first is always the best. I love "Back to the Future III," but the 2nd one I really never liked. Used to always watch Siskel & Ebert and always agreed with Siskel, but rarely Ebert.
This movie is underrated. I absolutely love it.
underrated by who?
Its my least favourite of the three films, but I still like it.
It's good but not as a sequel. It feels way more cheesy compare to the first. And the sequel Back to the Future 3 is pretty much feels like a made for television movie. It all went down after the first movie in my opinion.
I liked the future stuff. Of course, 2015 in reality wasn't completely like that.
Feno Mozo Just look at the reviews... even the moviegoers seem to rate this movie lower than the others. I personally think it’s the best.
All 3 Back to the Future movies were BRILLIANT.
It's October 21, 2015 now :)
This movie ruled. I loved part one, but I found this one better simply for the originality factor. How many sequels go back into the first movie from a different perspective making it fresh? Although there are some minor plot holes (nothing that cripples the movie) there will never be a movie as ingenious as Back to the Future II. Some people were put off by the darker tone of the film, but that helped differentiate it from its predecessor (much like Empire Strikes Back from Star Wars). This movie also called Miami having a baseball team. Genius!!!! How many academy awards did this win? 5? 6?
I loved the scene where Marty jumped off Biff's casino and comes back up on the Delorean and once again the music is top notch in this movie (too bad that I lost my blue-ray BTTF collection)
@ancient internet troll dude, kudos to your reading comprehension. I explained why in my brief paragraph, but you thought you had such a good zinger you didn't bother to read the whole thing. Unfiltered hilarity sir.
It was nominated for special effects and lost
Did you check your closet?
None, most people said it was the worst of the three movies
I was raised on these films. The first one was my go-to-movie pretty much 3 times a week as far back as I can remember.
I don't find the plot of Part II confusing in the least, but that's probably because I've seen it so many times.
I like to look at the trilogy as all part of one big story instead of judging them individually. But even if I was forced to, I would give all 3 of them 5/5 stars. Call it nostalgia if you wish; these movies resonate with me so much, and they're a huge part of my life. They are what began my obsession with film.
You're not alone. I also see them as a 6 hour movie. Back in the day I wanted to make it: a 6-hour BTTF movie cut, joining the movies where they meet at the ends and beginnings with one opening credits and one end credits on an EP/SLP VHS Tape. Never had a double-decked VHS Player to do that, but I might do it now in my PC.
I feel the exact same BTTFMovie...saw the first one as kid on home video in 1986, I actually watched it once a day for 8 months straight at one point when I was 8/9 years old......Part II I love aswell, gets better each time I see it
Me neither. I understood what Roger said and I could follow the plot with no difficulty.
Endless 3D Sequels?
How Ridiculous! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to see if there are any leftover 3D tickets for Star Wars 7.
+Zice033 :P good one
Hey Star Wars 7 was great!
It's funny how when I was a kid part 2 was my favorite one, and now as an adult its my least favorite. But I still loved all three.
+Phily Blunt thanks for your opinion.
Jero Briggs i feel exactly the same way.
@Wadsy eh we're all idiots lol
@@phily78 "you're"
As a 9 year old when I first saw it, 2 was my fav of the trilogy. 3 my least favourite. Now 2 is probably last and 3 much loved now because of Doc's love story.
I enjoy all three movies but the 2nd and 3rd are nothing compared to the first.
Callum Russell I agree
No.
2nd isn't that far off. It's just very different. It's the one that focuses most on the actual time travel and paradoxes and the least on romance. The third is a bit inferior but still a good movie.
Siskel missed the point, they were making BTTFIII at the same time which did have a lot of the same heart as the first and so Zemeckis and co. wanted to just have some fun with time travel with part II.
Well, Gene loved the first film-it was on his top ten list.
_Back To The Future:_ Gene👍 Roger👍
_Back To The Future 2:_ Gene👎 Roger👍
_Back To The Future 3:_ Gene👍 Roger👎
These people talk about Back to the Future so casualy, like it is just another movie, so amazing to see that, today it is like those movies are benchmark for classics
Back to the future 2 was very creative. I first saw it in Hong Kong, and at the end, when Marty surprises Doc Brown and says "I'm back, back from the future," the audience collectively gasped at the remarkable creativity of the story. I wish the critics would notice how fun and creative films can be. Roger Ebert gets it here.
I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and record more episodes of Siskel & Ebert for future enjoyment.
The father wasn't there because Crispin Glover didn't want to appear in the sequel.
@@brianrose8772 They didn't offer him enough money to do it.
Back to the Future is a really good creative sequel. Very underrated well told story about the dangers of time travel this time::)
The first was the best, the second had the best story.
I still like the original the most, but the sequels were enjoyable too.
Not nearly as great as the first but still I enjoy it, I love Lloyd as Doc Brown took the delorean concept into new heights & racing through time to change things.
I kinda love how Marty's dad 's enemy becomes Marty's.
Ebert was right, it was a very good sequel
I remember Barry Norman on BBC1 being totally baffled too. How is it that 10-year-olds like me get it immediately but 50-year-old critics are like :-O ?
This movie did quite well at the box office. Siskel was a little bit of a grinch, not understanding what the film was for - calling it "noisy" and "unpleasant" where it "doesn't mean anything to you." It was not trying to be the first film, it was trying to be entertaining - and on that level - it succeeded.
Another problem with the sequels is that they weren't planned. I guess after the success of the first film, they had to come up with sequels, instead of already having worked out the sequels while finishing the first story.
The ending was basically meant to be comedic and not actually set up sequels.
I have to agree this one is more convulted and less well written. It doesn't have that fun 1950s nostalgia or innocence. It has a few interesting ideas but the original is just sublime and didn't need 2 sequels.
@goldenheart Oh they mentioned the effects somewhat Siskel called it a gadget filled picture. You have 3-4 mins per segment in a syndicated broadcast that lasts 20 mins plus commercials they can't cover everything.
Part 2 was meant to be dark.
I remember when I saw this movie in theaters back in 1989 I thought the movie was going to take place only in the future (as teased at the end of the first movie). Because there was no Internet, you would go to the movies with little knowledge of what you were going to see. The movie delightfully caught me off guard with the turns and twists. That is what the Russo brothers are trying to do with Endgame by not showing anything from the film. I hope it will deliver in a similar way.
Saw this in theaters six times.
I’m jealous… seeing this beauty on 35mm film six times must have been awesome
@@aidangreen7006 Yes it was!!
So lucky it's 2024 and all we get is a blow up dvd print
@@shazanali692 will they still make blow up dolls so you can still have fun
A good sequel is supposed to give you what you got in the first film plus MORE and things you did not expect........Well..........I LOVED this movie its in my top 5. I LOVE that the third act is the third act of the first film, but seen from a different perspective. I thought it was very creative and visually very well done....Acting wise, not so much, but its a comedy!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do agree that without Crispin Glover we are losing out, but his character would not have played that big a role in the film anyways, perhaps it would have been different if he had returned but all in all this was a great sequel. Better than Jaws 2, Iron man 2, Starwars 2.........but that's not saying much, we all know what a steaming stink ball that was..............
I enjoyed all three movies.
I disagree, the second was different from the first and just as good in its own way.
It's a bummer that neither Siskel or Ebert lived to see the year 2015.
This review gives away the whole plot of the film!
I'm very fond of the original but I did like this one a lot more. I enjoyed the glaring contrast between that cheerful future and dystopian 1985 once Biff came to power and found the film to be one hell of a fun thrill ride. Plus Marty has the coolest hat ever.
My Preference:
1) Back to the Future Part III
2) Back to the Future
3) Back to the Future Part II
Doc has always felt like a kindred spirit to me and seeing him finally find love and raise a family... well, it gets me every time.
You are the first person I've ever seen to claim Part 3 is the best one!
I've always loved part 2, especially the darker and violent 1985 after Biff gets rich.
Back To The Future.
Biff.
Back To The Future part 3.
This guy is totally right.
For me, part 2 lands somewhere in the middle of Siskel and Ebert's opinions. It's still an entertaining ride, but it lacks the heart of the 1st and resolution of the 3rd. It's also aged the least well, and making Biff a cold blooded psychopath changed the tone for the worse.
I liked this movie back in '89. I find it very cheesy today.
nah it's very original
and part 3 the next year, as they filmed2 and 3 back to back,, what a great trilogy
The second film was so much cooler to me as a child, the future scenes had a science fiction charm that I had never seen. It was very "realistic" to me as a vision of the future, as opposed to things like Star Wars which were cool as a fantasy, but without any "realism" as it were. The framing in a small town with familiar brand names and cool flying cars seemed to me what the future really looked like, and no film has ever done that before or probably ever will, even though I was only 12 when it came out. To this day, even seeing the film through an adults eyes, and seeing all the cheesy effects, I can still remember what the film looked like through a kid's eyes, and there is still a magic there after all these years. Plus my dad worked for Pizza Hut and brought home all kinds of cool props like Doc Brown's crazy elastic sunglasses.
The third film was a disappointment afterwards though.
That's really interesting because in the commentary on the DVD for the film, the creators Bob Gale and Bob Zemeckis specifically said that every movie that has ever tried to predict the future got it wrong, so what they were going to do instead is just make a big joke out of everything, (such as Jaws 19 or needing $50 to buy a freaking pepsi due to outrageous inflation, or having the japanese pretty much ruling the tech/business world) so that when they inevitably got everything wrong, they could at least point to it and say "we weren't being serious, it was just a joke".
Though...I have to admit I'm still waiting for Nike power laces, hover boards by Mattel, and flying DeLoreans. I think I might start wearing my pants inside out just for fun. :P
Edit: I saw the other day a "Kids React" video where they did the original gameboy and the original walkman. Some of the kids complained about how involved it was to turn it on, push buttons, etc. All I could think of was the line "You mean you have to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy!"
Don Skiver
I think Nike did make the shoes, and they tighten automatically I am pretty sure, but don't have laces. Look it up.
wiremessiah I know someone built their own power lace shoes...and I know nike came out with a limited edition shoe that was designed from the movie, but I'm pretty sure they were manual and it was only for appearance.
Gene is ultimately arguing preferences, and I prefer the frenetic scifi/comedy of Part 2 than the heartfelt drama of 1 and 3. BttF2 is really similar to Who Framed Roger Rabbit (another 80s Zemeckis movie, with Christopher Lloyd). Parts 1 and 3, while benefiting from better character development, are kind of restrained. Part 2 takes her glasses off and lets her hair down
I wouldn't call Part 1 restrained. It's just a better movie.
Very few sequels can top the original...this is definitely one of them. But Ebert was very accurate here, we judge it for what it is, not in direct comparison to the first one. That first one was so captivating mostly due to its originality and "heart". How many films before or even after had a script centered around a mother crushing on her son in a strange time warp? Unless you include porn...never! You cannot get any more clever than that. But in the second one, the effort was there. I liked it when I first saw it but didn't necessarily love it, like #1. However, now that we are "in the future", I am falling in love with part 2. Not too many movies still keep me on the edge of my seat when I know exactly what will happen. It is fun in a zany, fast-paced way and now a classic!
Totally agree with Roger.
When Roger mentions you are a very clever reader in understanding what he said, I must be that since I certainly understood it.
Back to the Future 2 is one of the most loved movies ever.
The center piece to one of the best trilogy's ever. Stands the test of time. Where is Ebert now.
This was a good movie. But the first one was All Time great. These guys both had it right, in their reviews. You decide whether it's good enough to enjoy.
Agree with Siskel. The first movie's amazing; this one's noisy and dull. Turning Biff into a timeline-dominating villain is just silly.
I didn't think it was noisy and dull. Well, there is a little bit of noise in the alternate hellish 1985, but that was the point. Biff was getting his vengeance on the McFly family in this one by stealing the almanac and going back in time when he found out about the time machine. It reawakened it in him.
How did he figure out the time machine? And the flux capacitor? Apparently Biff can expertly traverse time epochs but the two protagonists cannot.
Agree. The second film just rushes into the plot which is much more convulted. The first film spent about 20 minutes showing us the life of our protagonist and how all his dreams and frustration later pay off at the end, you have the heart of the story being the relationship with both Doc Brown saving his life and his two parents, realising they were once young and romantic too. The second film has a messier story, they couldn't get all the original cast back, the young cast are starting to get too old to play teenagers, it's a bit all over the place storywise, present future, present, past, they jump in the car like every 10 minutes to a new timeline.
A part of the problem is that the studio promoted Part II as a self contained film.
Part II lacked a sense of focus. The first film took place entirely in 1955 and was about meeting your parents when they are your age. Time travel was just a mechanism to help that happen. This is all about what can go wrong with time travel, and undoes the redemption of the first film. Marty is easily bated by being called "chicken," which somehow nobody thought to call him in the first film, even though Biff and Griff now think to do it. Biff himself appeared to have turned over a new leaf, but now he's been nursing his resentment for 60 years, which makes George look like a fool for letting him stay in his life. Is this move about the future? No, less than half of it takes place there. Is it about a nightmarish present? Again no, same reason. Is it about 1955? No. And a better movie is playing in the background. The best that can be said about this part is that it inspired Avengers: Endgame.
Excellent points!!
Part II isn’t for everyone but I do love it still
You come a little close to part of the truth there--you can make the case for part 1 being a better movie. I don't agree, but you can make the case and I'd definitely respect that. Both are great movies.
But here is what you can't deny: part 2 was far more revolutionary... no one had done branching timelines or a meta-story like that before, not to my recollection. It inspired not just some overhyped superhero crap, but an entire generation of movie and TV sci fi writers to have the confidence to get more complicated (and interesting) with their time travel plots, and for that I am quite grateful.
I do fully respect anyone who likes part 1 over part 2; it's got some great stuff like the absolutely fantastic ending, and of course 2's meta-story relies on 1.
But it's nonsense to complain about part 2 having a "lack of focus". You're the second commenter here to say that. No, it's just a VERY DIFFERENT STORY---but it's actually *far* *more* focused than part 1 ever dreamt of being... with its 1950s schmaltz that lingers too long and just a few too many campy side-plots like the "don't call me chicken" running gag you reference.
The focus of Part 2 is very clear: find out what the hell happened and then reverse it. It's briefly a nighmare-mystery and then once Marty learns what's up it turns into a unique caper movie (with strong thread of screwball comedy consistently there during the somewhat dark plot) to retrieve the almanac.
If you want period piece parodies... I mean, there have been hundreds made. Part 1's 1955 sendup is pretty average, I'd say. Part 3's western stuff was extremely lazy indeed, made worse with the fanfiction-style love affair. But part was not *about* 2 the future, nor was it *about* Marty's insipid family dramas. Unlike the other two movies, in part 2 these things were relatively minor side plots that had relevance only to the very start of the movie. After this introductory stuff, part 2 become a very clear and focused story, and also a far more original one.
That much is not arguable. What *is* arguable is whether you prefer the original, fast-paced, slightly dark around the edges comedy-caper plot of part 2 vs. part 1's endless 1950s schmalt and sitcomlike family dramas with a little more Oedipus than normal, for those who like that sorta thing .(...plus its great Marty-Doc dynamic culminating in a fantastic ending, granted. I can't argue with Part 1 having the best ending.)
I got the complete trilogy for Christmas back in 02 and I have a new appreciation for this movie. LOL
Back to the Future is a great movie, extremely creative and precisely what the second movie should have been - about the dangers of time travel...not supposed to have same tone as the original, but that doesn't mean better or worse, just different...still not as entertaining as it could have been as sequels like Empire and Temple of Doom, but still, a damn good sequel :)
Great Scott!
1:55 Roger slowly eats your dreams... Look away or you will lose your soul...
I like how Siskel says it’s too unpleasant by how loud it is… if only he were alive to see the Transformer movies
@JSSTyger In his review (on youtube) he also says that the Terminator is from another planet. I guess he saw another movie than I did!
I think the series pulled off a unique realism in the first film, despite the fantasy elements. The second movie lost that realism when it had Michael J. Fox play everyone in his family.
Its plot is complex. And it does make sense. In fact, it deserves props in my opinion for being so complex and still making sense. What was so ridiculous that you couldn't take it seriously.
Luckily Part 3 redeemed the franchise.
Was their a mainstream film Gene ever liked?
The original Back to the Future.
Actually the weak one is the third. The first two are absolute classics
Agreed
clint eastwood !
I like the whole BTF triology, but BTF 2 is my least favorite of the three movies. First is the best, third one is fun and entertaining, and this one, is too all over the place
Siskel is a hopeless movie romantic.
He bashed on "The Terminator" for not expanding on the two main characters relationship.
Winner: Ebert
0:27 - :42 Is this possible?
i liked one the best 2 or 3 kinda tuff call but im leaning toward 3 i liked them all though
Back to the future trilogies are perfect . Classics. Never ever remake these movies! Please
Ebert may have been confused by the plot, but I saw it at the theater when I was 11, and I understood it perfectly.
They gave a way a lot of spoilers in their reviews!
one was the best then 2 then 3 but i love all 3
Sure, it's dark, but it's a classic. Love love loved it.
I think this series is great for a lot of reasons; one of which is you can ask 3 people which of the 3 films they like best and get 3 different answers.
BTTF 2 is the best in the trilogy. It's the only one where the focus is on time travel. It has darkness to it and much larger in scope than the other two. I think Ebert gets that, and I also agree more with him about BTTF 3 than Siskel.
Yet another review from these guys I disagree with. They didn't even mention the amazing cutting edge effects that added to the story in a huge way. It was interesting to watch though, so I thumbs upped the video.
I like part 2 the most out of the entire trilogy...to make a.sequel that plays with parts of the first, inserts mcfly right back into the original, is genius...truly a great film
Not really. Gimmicks aside, story wise it’s way too cluttered and unfocused, with too many narrative inconsistencies.
@cHeStEr5434 I disagree...never found it cluttered more overflowing with creativity. But then again I love amazing Spiderman 2...so, knowing that, I admit that what I love may not align with most. But thanks for the reply.
I respect your opinion
It was a back to back sequel so it didn't have to be a polished film. Part 2 was almost an update to part 1 adding more scenes
Was never confusing.
Mad Professor? Bad Guy? Did Ebert even watch this movie before reviewing it or did he just watch the trailer.
Oh yeah, I would have loved to go to the theatre in 1989 for a Back to the Future sequel called BIFF
How can they call Doc a mad professor? He’s a genius
A complete reversal of what I expected. It’s weird seeing Ebert softer on a movie than Siskel
I didn't enjoy it as much as the first, but the part where Marty starts messing with the past from BTTF1, then gets in Biff's car to steal back the almanac, that all made up for the movie's flaws. And I loved Old Biff's argument with Young Biff ("Now, why don't you make like a tree, and get outta here!")
2:49 "the father isn't even really there" Crispin Glover declined the repeat role, so the producers put a different actor in a terrible-looking prosthetic face. Glover sued (and won) for using his likeness without pay, but his career suffered as a consequence.
Siskel says the father isn't even there in this movie- It's interesting we know some of the reason now. Crispin Glover declined to reprise his role and even won a lawsuit against the makers of this movie.
A lot of times you make the movie you can, not the movie you really want...
it's better than the first one...
Nope!
I agree that it isn’t as good as the first one, but I enjoyed it for going bonkers for how much time travel was done throughout the movie, so I agree with Roger on that end.
I personally prefer Part II to Part I.
This was a really good one but Back to the Future 3 I just never really could get into the thing about doc Falling in Love with that chick from what's eating Gilbert Grape
It's one of the dullest love stories ever put to film. Back to the Future for the Hallmark channel.
Nah, introducing Clara was a nice touch. She felt much more real than any new character in the second film, and her and Doc had good chemistry. Plus, their relationship helped flesh out Doc’s character a bit more, showing that he’s more than just an eccentric scientist - I like how near the end he feels conflicted about whether he should do what his mind says (go back to 1985 with Marty) or his heart (stay in the old west with Clara).
@@cHeStEr5434 She was pure fanfiction tripe and if there was any doubt that her subplot was the product of hacks with a lazy fanfiction mindset, they actually bring her back just to show off their frickin' KIDS in a flying train.
Clara could've been a nice touch if there was any point at all to her character. I don't mind character development, but it needs to actually fit into the plot. It's a movie--not a 5 day per week soap opera. There's a very limited amount of time. Throwing in the love interest that had NOTHING to do with the rest of the story and then showing off their kids and crap is just the writers' way of saying they're completely out of ideas.
Wow, they spoiled a lot of a film's content in their review
Alex Naoum critics
Well, they didn't give away everything.
I have to disagree with them here, sure it wasn’t as good as the first movie, but it’s still a decent sequel.
I guess spoiler alerts weren’t a thing back in the day. Dude told the whole story down to the smallest detail in 5 mins.
I can understand why some didnt like it but it is the middle chapter of the trilogy so it kinda stands out abit more as the uneven 'darker' chapter. Personally I think its underrated.
I don't think you know what underrated means.
@@cineMADvocate No, I vote you as least likely to understand what "underrated" means in this reply chain.
@NepperCat is correct; although part 1 was an extremely good movie, way too many people downplay part 2 on the basis of cheap complaints about 'plot holes' (nevermind that 1 had more) or not liking the relatively brief retrofuture sequence at the start of the movie, while overlooking the *two* VERY original concepts of telling a metastory based on a previous movie and also the whole concept of a branching timeline time travel movie, which seems simple now but back then was interesting and exciting and I don't think had been done before then. In terms of innovation (and also just pure madcap fun), part 2 is the superior movie. I can understand liking part 1 better but tons of people put part 2 waaaay down I think out of some embarrassment that they liked the flying cars as a kid. But it's actually a far more intelligent movie than part 1 with its disappearing-picture gag and its 50s schmaltz dripping from everything.
(Granted, part 1 had the best ending of them all.)
can u elaborate on it? ur explanation is a bit rushed an thus not complete. send a pm if ur so kind :D
I like it better in some ways than the 1st one, Biff old, Biff medium, Biff young lol