This pair of reviews - of Back to the Future II and III - really highlights Siskel and Ebert's curmodgeonly chemistry. Ebert enjoyed II as a screwball comedy; Siskel was dismayed at its hollowing out of Part I's heart. Siskel felt that III was a welcome return to the whimsy and humanity of the original; Ebert rejected it based on its failure as a western. I liked all three movies, and periodically re-watch them, but I'm kind of glad this legendary pair couldn't find a consensus. It's a charming opportunity to watch their classic interplay. To both reviews I give an enthusiastic thumbs up!
Part 2 is definitely a completely different kind of movie from the other two but that never bothered me. I realize that Bob Zemeckis was not going for a realistic take on anything in any of the three movies, so something not quite measuring up to what we feel it should be is not fair. For me, this is one of those movie series where you do best if you try not to analyze it too much.* For me, BttF 1-3 will always stand as one of the best trilogies of all time. * For example, we could ask ourselves what Doc's original plan for taking Marty and Jennifer to the future was. They were going to fix some problem that hasn't happened yet, then go back to 1985 and wait for 2015 to roll around again so they could fix it again? Makes no sense, but I'm pretty sure the reason it is somewhat illogical is because with the "shocking" ending of the first one they kind of forced themselves to deal with what they had set up.
This will always be my favorite Back to the Future movie. Doc is the guy I root for when I watch these films and I'm so glad to see that he finally gets his happily ever after.
As a kid this was my least favorite one, and now as an adult it's my favorite. It's funny how your tastes change over the years. Always loved all three films though. And still do.
I love the third one! Apart from all the fun from start to finish, it also had such a sweet romance between Doc Brown and Clara Clayton. The bit where she stops the train after hearing those two men talking about Doc's experiments still gets me right here **Tap tap** every time. Then the very end with the locomotive version of the time machine, Marty getting Jennifer... Who saw that and didn't want more? :)
I disliked this as a kid. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view my taste didn’t change with regards to part 3 as I got older. I still dislike it. 👎🏻
@@saymynameice-zen-berg511 Obviously a lack of brain development occurred after you got bullied at school. The loss of your puppy also traumatized you.
I appreciate the point that Roger makes as he has the advantage of having seen all the westerns and the comparison he seems to make between this and other movies on the basis of a western. I've visited a number of abandoned former mining towns out west that were active in the 1880's. The way they have been preserved suggests the town created for the movie was pretty close to the real thing.
Love this film. Again, I always agreed with Siskel, rarely Ebert. And, the movie has ZZ Top!! So much to love about this sequel. All those great character actors in the saloon are funny when they tell "Clint" "you better run squirrel."
I like the lead-in to that name. Buford Tannen:"What's your name, runt"? The Tannen clan, as far as I'm concerned, had all of the charm of a rusty hinge on a door! All squeak, and no let-up from the squeaking! (Or whatever)! Back to the Future needs to have at least 2 more segments added to it, so that we can see what happened to Doc's family, what happened to Marty's family, and what that stinkin' Ol' Cowpoke, Biff Tannen, is up to. I bet it'd be wild!
Everyone always argues which part is the best. In my eyes, I see all of them as one film. They are called "parts" after all, not sequels. The story is ongoing and ties itself all together in the end. Whenever I watch them, I always have to watch them in a row.
Right I mean that's not an unreasonable framing but nonetheless they are also still standalone films. They were released 2 years apart. Any particular the first one contains the father character who was not involved in the next two. And you really can't recreate the whole idea of him meeting his parents as high schoolers. Don't get me wrong All three of them are great. The first one is arguably the best comedy of all time though. I mean I put it right up there with groundhog Day and spinal tap and so on as the greatest comedy I've ever seen
I agreed with Ebert's review of Part II and Siskel's review of Part III. Ebert's criticism of Part III not being good as a western misses the point. This isn't merely a western. It's a the conclusion of the trilogy and gets pay-offs from gags established in the prior 2. About Marty's heritage. About Biff's heritage. About Hill Valley. Even about Strickland. As I've grown older I've grown to appreciate Part III far more than I did when I first watched it as a kid in he theatre or rewatching it at home. It has a lot of heart.
3:09 speak the truth Ebert! Speak the absolute truth! BTTF3 is not 'awful' but it is a western movie with a few time travelling elements, rather than a time travel movie with western elements.
Funny, the second film Ebert liked, Siskel disliked. This film their roles were reversed. I noticed looking at other reviews as time went on, they disagreed a lot. Ebert does not think it was a good Western, but otherwise the film is fine. Problem is, most of the film is a western. Note that in nearly all the westerns Ebert reviews during his life, he disliked nearly all of them.... so that might be influencing him here.
Well, one sequel doesn't have anything to do with another. Each one they went into with a fresh mind. This time around, Gene just happened to like it and Roger felt it was a disappointment. I thought this film was okay and basically mirrored the first film in so many ways.
Part 3 finally gives Doc Brown some depth as a character. By the way, Mary Steenburgen starred in a terrific western comedy Going South with Jack Nicholson.
Part III is widely underrated! Most everybody says it’s the worst of the three… That seems to be the overall “mainstream” consensus. I usually agree more with Ebert over Siskel, but I find myself agreeing with Siskel on this one
As much as I enjoy the two of them debating their points of view, I think Ebert's review was kind of cornball and trite here. The Back To The Future series is a Science Fiction Comedy. The setting of the third film is in the west, but it's not a Western film, it's a SciFi Comedy. He mentions seeing Pat Buttrum and Dub Taylor in the saloon, which kind of places the film into what he calls 'the movie west', not 'the old west'. But again I come back to SciFi Comedy, to me seeing those actors add to the humour of the series.
Always fun to see these guys go back and forth I don't always see eye to eye with them but still have fun watching them,love the Back To The Future Trilogy,thanks for the upload this was a great trip to the past.
On most fronts, this was a better movie than the 2nd, but I would rather watch the 2nd movie any day. It just has that guilty pleasure factor. The 1st film leaves both completely in the dust.
I don't have a problem with the word great but it's hard to compare anything to the first back to the future. That's one of the greatest movies of all time I wouldn't say that about the second or the 3rd. I mean certainly it's up there for one of the greatest trilogies of all time. But if I were to make a list of like the 10 greatest comedies back to the Future would be at or near the top. The sequels would not be in the top 10 But I mean that's what's kind of an inherently unfair about the comparison. Like nothing's going to stand up well to back to the future besides the absolute legendary comedies like caddyshack or spinal tap or groundhog Day or blazing saddles.
And this and Part II were both filmed simultaneously; which is why Part III was released just a few months after the just OK (for me)Part II. Michael J. Fox said he enjoyed making this over Part II because “he wanted to be a cowboy”.
If the series were to continue (and yes, I've played the Telltale games and enjoyed them), I'd like Marty, a teen of 1985, to see 1995. The history's already occurred, so the novelty could be in a 1985 kid reacting to what actually happened in only 10 years since then. Too, it's close enough to the 80s and far enough away from 2015 to not be too affected by that fiction's further-off future.
The Back to the Future series will always be my favorite sci-fi films of all time. At one point, I thought the Star Wars episodes were my favorite, but no; it is Back to the Future I, II, III for sure.
"@mikearminius demo this was the best one out of all 3 in my opinion. I would of thought that there would of been 2 delorians though. Because when the doc went back to 1885 he had the delorian. So why wouldnt there of been a delorian back in 1885 also." Yes, you are right. At that point there would've been 2 DeLoreans in 1885, but the one in the cave (1885) had to stay there so that Marty and Doc (1955) could find it, fix it and travel back to 1885. He had to leave it as it was. If he messed with it, even a little, Doc (1955) could've not fix the DeLorean in that year and Marty would've been stuck in the 50's, again. Their only choice 'then' was to wait for the timeline to pass by normally (1985) and when Doc builds the time machine again, then go back to 1885 to save Doc, but Marty would've been as old as their parents... Heavy? Yes, I know...
I didn´t agree with Ebert on this one except on one thing "there isn´t that much time travell and paradoxes, basically when they back there it becomes a western", and yeah that´s the main problem with the movie, it doesn´t feel that much like Back to the future, and the romance between doc and clara wasn´t that interesting if you ask me because lacked all the quirkiness of the first one´s love triangle with Marty and his parents and became a cliché romance. all the other stuff that the movie has to offer is great, like comedy, acting, action etc.
I disagree, I thought the romance was interesting because it was between two normal looking middle aged people with common interests - You almost never see that in a mainstream Hollywood movie these days. Plus, it added more layers to Doc's character, showing that he's more than just an eccentric scientist, and I felt for him when he was conflicted about whether to do what his mind tells him (to go back to the future with Marty) or what his heart says (stay in 1885 with Clara).
Actually, he didn't. Old Biff returned to an alternate 2015, which Doc describes to Marty later in the film. He was erased from existence by the "ripple effect", replaced by an even worse version. This was left ambiguous in the film, but Bob Gale describes it on the DVD commentaries.
I disagree with Ebert here and disagreed with Siskel on #2. I hear what they were saying, but this trilogy is genius in that each one is very similar but stands out on its own, even being a unique genre. Like others mentioned, this disagreement is what made this show fun to watch, especially as it's sincere. My grades BTTF 1: A+, perfect movie 👌 with a setup that never had the guts to be done before. So good it's beyond a genre. Part 2: A-, the effort in having scenes within scenes with the same characters cannot be dismissed--neither can the intense suspense. It is almost a dark dystopian thrilled juxtaposed to a screwball comedy. It was the ending that kinda bothered me. I know its a series, but a perfect film concludes perfectly. Part 3: A. Near perfect and a fun "Hollywood" western. A great love story for probably the coolest character in this world--Doc Brown. It didn't have the same bliss-buzz as #1, but not too many movies do. I thought it was mediocre as a kid, but love it as an adult. Great message too, if you pay attention
I tended to agree with Ebert more than with Siskel. The Back To The Future trilogy is an exception to that. I'm with Gene all the way on these movies - the first was special, second overblown and the third better. I only wish in their three reviews they would have not only given Michael J Fox more credit but also Crispen Glover from the first and Thomas Wilson in all three. They deserved more than a passing mention for the engaging performances they gave. Still miss this show and these guys.
For me the first is best, 3rd is second best, and the 2nd one is 3rd place so I agree with Siskel, just as I did as a kid. Unlike him though I would give all 3 a thumbs up and much bigger now that I have seen the last 5 years of movies.
this is why these two where so awesome! it is not about if a movie is good or bad,is about sharing opinions and pints of view ,showing teh passion you have for something,if you like a bad movie,it doesn't make you and idiot or anything, it is a manner of Taste, i salute you greatest movie critics of all time!
If they had done an actual Old West style town like Ebert wanted, I wonder if he would be complaining that it needed to be more of a movie style Old West town.
Well, it is a mirror of the first one, if you think about it. A lot of the same stuff that happened in the first happens here, but it is still interesting.
Funny how much my opinion tracked with Ebert's. When Siskel didn't like 2 I assumed he would hate 3, because I think it's the weakest by far. Instead, he liked it and I found myself agreeing with Ebert on all three reviews.
Traveling through time doesn't eat their gas, but it empties the plutonium/Mr. fusion. In the first film doc drives Marty home at the end. In the second film they fly to Hill Valley and never fill the tank up at all before going to alternate 1985, and old Biff took it to 1955 and back with no problems. If time travel really emptied the gas tank, they would have noticed an empty tank in 2015 when old Biff brings it back and leaves. Also, in part 3 the arrow punctures the gas line and drains it
Ebert has a good point. The Old West was not like people usually picture it. It would have been pretty funny to see Marty's suppositions about the Old West (based on what he's seen in movies) get turned upside down in the real West. I guess that was a missed opportunity, but I still think it's a pretty good movie.
Ebert is right. Part II was more fun because they play around with the timeline. In Part 3, they're just stuck in the west and it's not as interesting. The story is similar to the first movie where they need to repair the DeLorean to get back home. It's still a good movie and it was nice that they didn't just copy part 2 again with more time travel shenanigans.
The problem with Part 3 was it was a snoozefest compared to the original or most of part 1. It was really slow-paced. It wasn't until the very end with the train that the movie had any sense of action and momentum. And this was unexpected coming from Zemeckis who up to this point was known only for really fast, rollicking, zany, action-filled movies. The basic premise of part 3 also fell into the old trap of a sequel repeating the original movie's story, whereas part 2's plot had virtually nothing in common with part 1. In part 3 we are once again stuck in the past and have to concoct a crazy technical exercise to get the juice to get the car back to the future. Boring. Just think if you were writing part 4 now, would you ever write that same climax into the movie? You would realize it would be boring to audiences to see that recycled again.
Siskel was right and Ebert was wrong for once? Wow. All three films were great fun, great entertainment, making it one of the best trilogies of all time!
BTTF 3 is a big step forward from the mess made by BTTF 2. It's much more a western that a time travel movie, but I loved it. Fox, Lloyd, Wilson and Steenburgen and just wonderful.
Aww...come on, Roger! I've never been able to say that I've always liked Gene's opinions on certain movies, and I've said, several times, that he could be such a stuffed shirt...but here, he's right. This was a great movie! Roger, Unfortunately, ended up being the stuffed shirt here! This movie was less complicated to follow than Back to the Future 2, and it has more of a charm to it than Back to the Future 2. Number 2 is still great...but it's complicated to follow, until you've seen it at least a couple of times.
I love all 3 movies!!! I have to agree with Ebert in regards to pt. 2--it is kind of convoluted but it is enjoyable. There's a lot of heart in all three movies, and I wish they could make a part 4.
+Samus Aran noooo, Back to the Future shines in the fact that unlike other series it has not been exploited, the 3 films shine brilliantly and were left alone without any other franchise spinoffs or toys made out of them.
I read that Michael J Fox starred in a late 90’s sitcom called Spin-City and there was an episode that Christopher Lloyd was also in. The episode was titled, ‘Back To The Future part IV’.
Once you understand that the events of Back to the Future 2 rests on the results of this movie, it all makes sense. Instead of backing out of the race at the last minute, Marty hits the Rolls-Royce and becomes the broken Marty in the future. The paradox is set up and solved within the two sequels. One wouldn't work at all without the other. The first movie has it's own continuity. But now that I've figured out the time travel loop they were going for, I love both Back to the Future sequels even more. Makes me sad that James Cameron couldnt do the same thing with the Terminator movies
"as a western movie this didn't work well". Buddy, it ain't a western, it has a Delorean time machine in it. Stop with the illogical viewpoint and enjoy the flick, it's fantastic. Geeez.
Part 3 is cute and for the most part enjoyable--especially, as Siskel pointed out, the burgeoning romance between Lloyd & Steenburgen. Ebert in his written review made the rather absurd wish that the film had presented a realistic depiction of the West as in McCabe & Mrs Miller (!) As much as I love that film, I can't think of two directors whose sensibilities are more diametrically opposed to each other than Altman and Zemeckis.
I think Roger Ebert completely missed the bus with his review of Part III. He disliked Part III because Marty went back in time to what is essentially a movie western, rather than a realistic old west. But he had no problem with Marty going forward in time, to what is essentially a cartoon version of the future, in Part II. He also had no problem with Marty going back to an idealized, "Leave it to Beaver" sitcom version of the 1950s in Part I? Why does he demand reality in Part III when hard reality was never a part of the series? Sometimes these guys just picked and chose things to gripe about arbitrarily.
Idealized "leave it to beaver" 1950's ? That's not true at all. Nothing seemed ideal in that decade and the film went as far as pointing out the racism that was prevalent during that era.
The charm of this film is the "future" colliding with the Western-style past (as cliched or conventional as it may have been). You'd almost have to make it from the point of view of convention or the jokes and characterizations wouldn't work. Of course, they could have made an entirely different type of movie......and maybe that's what Roger wants.
As I watch more of their reviews I’m starting to notice myself always thinking “what?” When it comes to a lot of Roger’s criticisms. He tried to throw Gene off by saying if it was all a western movie you wouldn’t like it as much. But it’s not all a western so what’s the purpose of thinking in those terms. Perhaps the reason the western bits of this movie work is because they’re sparse. I guess I might come off as dumb to a lot of ppl about this claim but rn I’m on team Gene with this movie.
What's wrong with Pat Buttram? Roger seemed pretty bothered by that as well as seeing the movie take place in 1855 Hill Valley. I've barely seen Roger dislike a movie for an odd reason like that. Usually it's Gene that doesn't like a movie for an odd reason.
A bad rap from who? The Back to the Future trilogy as a whole is universally loved, and most agree that Part II was the weakest chapter (yet still great)
Ebert misses the point of the past -- not only is it a homage to several classic westerns, but you're watching the town of Hill Valley itself as a character grow and change over the course of these three films.
Roger Ebert is wrong. The reason all western towns looked the same is because they were literally the same town. The workers on the Continental Railroad were paid extraordinarily good wages for the time, so an enterprising corporation set up a town for the men to spend their money on their one day off per week (on booze, gambling, and prostitutes). As the railroad moved further west, the company disassembled the town, put it on flatcars, and moved west along with it. During the week the company reassembled the town at the new waypoint, and on the weekend it was ready for the train crew. That happened all the way to the Rocky Mountains, when the financiers started importing more and more laborers from China and wages were lowered. Incidentally, that's why San Francisco had/has such a large Chinese population and such a huge Chinatown, because of all the imported labor and because SF was the western terminus of the railroad. The cliched western town IS the real western town.
this was the best one out of all 3 in my opinion. I would of thought that there would of been 2 delorians though. Because when the doc went back to 1885 he had the delorian. So why wouldnt there of been a delorian back in 1885 also.
Hold up a second Ebert, you're gonna criticize part 3 for the western movie cliches but the 1950's America cliches in the first one are perfectly acceptable? It's supposed to be fun not historically accurate. Lighten up a bit dude.
because the 1950s cliches are not as overblown and tired as the western ones. there had been a lot of better western parody filsm at that point, but there hadn't been as many 1950s parodies.
I like the film, but it does have its problems. Various plot holes are apparent; for instance, if Doc Brown was killed in 1885, how is he still alive in 1955 and helping Marty?
@@erikbuehler7336 It’s damaged, been buried in a mineshaft, and awaiting to be uncovered by Marty 70 years later to be fixed up in order to send Marty back to 1985. All this is explained in the letter Doc wrote.
Go on then. The only way he could have been killed in 1885 is by building a time machine to go there. So he must have built it in 1985. He must have got the idea in 55.
Doc should have just siphoned some fuel out of the one in the mine and put it in the Delorean with an empty tank and the newly fixed fuel line. Its not stated if he drained the gas from the one he put in the mine though. Gas normally goes bad in a month or so and hurts a car that is not driven for a while. If he was smart enough to invent a time machine, I think he would have been smart enough to do that.
I generally like most of Ebert's reviews, but in this particular case, he was just being petulant and getting back at Siskel for not liking Part 2. None of the things Ebert mentions make any sense and everything Siskel says does.
I don't know why, but i never watched this movie till the end it never worked for me, seen it millions of times on tv over the years and somehow i always flip the channel, cause it gives me the creeps, like if the 3rd Terminator was about cowboys, i don't know why but it is so bad for me
But at least the 1950’s setting and having a teenage son see their parents when they were young was way more interesting. The western homages were bland and the romance between Doc and Clara really does little for the movie. Doc was never that interesting enough a character for that.
This pair of reviews - of Back to the Future II and III - really highlights Siskel and Ebert's curmodgeonly chemistry. Ebert enjoyed II as a screwball comedy; Siskel was dismayed at its hollowing out of Part I's heart. Siskel felt that III was a welcome return to the whimsy and humanity of the original; Ebert rejected it based on its failure as a western. I liked all three movies, and periodically re-watch them, but I'm kind of glad this legendary pair couldn't find a consensus. It's a charming opportunity to watch their classic interplay. To both reviews I give an enthusiastic thumbs up!
It was only a matter of time before Ebert killed Siskel.
Part 2 is definitely a completely different kind of movie from the other two but that never bothered me. I realize that Bob Zemeckis was not going for a realistic take on anything in any of the three movies, so something not quite measuring up to what we feel it should be is not fair. For me, this is one of those movie series where you do best if you try not to analyze it too much.*
For me, BttF 1-3 will always stand as one of the best trilogies of all time.
* For example, we could ask ourselves what Doc's original plan for taking Marty and Jennifer to the future was. They were going to fix some problem that hasn't happened yet, then go back to 1985 and wait for 2015 to roll around again so they could fix it again? Makes no sense, but I'm pretty sure the reason it is somewhat illogical is because with the "shocking" ending of the first one they kind of forced themselves to deal with what they had set up.
@@JustWasted3HoursHereit's looks like being back to the future movie with back to the wast of gaslight theater show on Spotify spoof movie
Disagreement between Siskel and Ebert always made their show more interesting and compelling.
+cgrscott Meanwhile on AMC/Collider Movie Talk everyone likes the film and there is little to no disagreement.
Do you like film review shows were there is little or no disagreement or do you welcome the disagreement in these kind of shows?
this is one of their best debates lol ebert "if this was only a western".. siskel looking like "huh"? lol
This will always be my favorite Back to the Future movie. Doc is the guy I root for when I watch these films and I'm so glad to see that he finally gets his happily ever after.
As a kid this was my least favorite one, and now as an adult it's my favorite. It's funny how your tastes change over the years. Always loved all three films though. And still do.
True.
I love the third one! Apart from all the fun from start to finish, it also had such a sweet romance between Doc Brown and Clara Clayton. The bit where she stops the train after hearing those two men talking about Doc's experiments still gets me right here **Tap tap** every time.
Then the very end with the locomotive version of the time machine, Marty getting Jennifer... Who saw that and didn't want more? :)
I think It's far ahead of the second film.
I disliked this as a kid. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view my taste didn’t change with regards to part 3 as I got older. I still dislike it. 👎🏻
@@saymynameice-zen-berg511 Obviously a lack of brain development occurred after you got bullied at school. The loss of your puppy also traumatized you.
I appreciate the point that Roger makes as he has the advantage of having seen all the westerns and the comparison he seems to make between this and other movies on the basis of a western. I've visited a number of abandoned former mining towns out west that were active in the 1880's. The way they have been preserved suggests the town created for the movie was pretty close to the real thing.
Marty: "Hey! Frisbee! Far out!"
Seamus: "What was the meaning of that?"
Maggie: "It was right in front of him!"
I've always loved part 3 - I think it's a really fun and uplifting movie
Love this film. Again, I always agreed with Siskel, rarely Ebert. And, the movie has ZZ Top!! So much to love about this sequel. All those great character actors in the saloon are funny when they tell "Clint" "you better run squirrel."
"Eastwood.. Clint Eastwood.."
"What kind of stupid name is that?!" Haha!
One of the greatest lines in any movie. Based on its relevance.
I like the lead-in to that name. Buford Tannen:"What's your name, runt"? The Tannen clan, as far as I'm concerned, had all of the charm of a rusty hinge on a door! All squeak, and no let-up from the squeaking! (Or whatever)! Back to the Future needs to have at least 2 more segments added to it, so that we can see what happened to Doc's family, what happened to Marty's family, and what that stinkin' Ol' Cowpoke, Biff Tannen, is up to. I bet it'd be wild!
Everyone always argues which part is the best. In my eyes, I see all of them as one film. They are called "parts" after all, not sequels. The story is ongoing and ties itself all together in the end. Whenever I watch them, I always have to watch them in a row.
Right I mean that's not an unreasonable framing but nonetheless they are also still standalone films. They were released 2 years apart. Any particular the first one contains the father character who was not involved in the next two. And you really can't recreate the whole idea of him meeting his parents as high schoolers. Don't get me wrong All three of them are great. The first one is arguably the best comedy of all time though. I mean I put it right up there with groundhog Day and spinal tap and so on as the greatest comedy I've ever seen
I agreed with Ebert's review of Part II and Siskel's review of Part III. Ebert's criticism of Part III not being good as a western misses the point. This isn't merely a western. It's a the conclusion of the trilogy and gets pay-offs from gags established in the prior 2. About Marty's heritage. About Biff's heritage. About Hill Valley. Even about Strickland.
As I've grown older I've grown to appreciate Part III far more than I did when I first watched it as a kid in he theatre or rewatching it at home. It has a lot of heart.
As a homage to westerns, it’s rather sanitized and weak. It’s only slightly better than the second movie.
3:09 speak the truth Ebert! Speak the absolute truth! BTTF3 is not 'awful' but it is a western movie with a few time travelling elements, rather than a time travel movie with western elements.
Funny, the second film Ebert liked, Siskel disliked. This film their roles were reversed. I noticed looking at other reviews as time went on, they disagreed a lot. Ebert does not think it was a good Western, but otherwise the film is fine. Problem is, most of the film is a western. Note that in nearly all the westerns Ebert reviews during his life, he disliked nearly all of them.... so that might be influencing him here.
AcuraT Good point, the only Westerns Roger liked that I know of were 'The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly' and 'Django Unchained'.
LoN3wOlF5tudi0s Good point, did not know he liked all three of those
Anyone here agree that this movie feels like it was made for tv? It was that bad... I am serious.
+Foogly Oogly No I didn't think it was that bad, but I didn't like it either.
Well, one sequel doesn't have anything to do with another. Each one they went into with a fresh mind. This time around, Gene just happened to like it and Roger felt it was a disappointment. I thought this film was okay and basically mirrored the first film in so many ways.
Part 3 finally gives Doc Brown some depth as a character. By the way, Mary Steenburgen starred in a terrific western comedy Going South with Jack Nicholson.
Part III is widely underrated! Most everybody says it’s the worst of the three… That seems to be the overall “mainstream” consensus. I usually agree more with Ebert over Siskel, but I find myself agreeing with Siskel on this one
They really pulled it out. The third was a masterpiece.
As much as I enjoy the two of them debating their points of view, I think Ebert's review was kind of cornball and trite here. The Back To The Future series is a Science Fiction Comedy. The setting of the third film is in the west, but it's not a Western film, it's a SciFi Comedy. He mentions seeing Pat Buttrum and Dub Taylor in the saloon, which kind of places the film into what he calls 'the movie west', not 'the old west'. But again I come back to SciFi Comedy, to me seeing those actors add to the humour of the series.
Right and it’s not like Hill Valley 1955 was a perfectly realistic depiction of the time period. It was very idealized as well.
Always fun to see these guys go back and forth I don't always see eye to eye with them but still have fun watching them,love the Back To The Future Trilogy,thanks for the upload this was a great trip to the past.
On most fronts, this was a better movie than the 2nd, but I would rather watch the 2nd movie any day. It just has that guilty pleasure factor. The 1st film leaves both completely in the dust.
So true. The second movie, at its best scenes, was so wildly inventive often.
So Siskel was wrong about 2 and Ebert was wrong about 3, the whole trilogy is great!
Siskel was spot on about 2, Ebert was wrong about 2 and 3
I don't have a problem with the word great but it's hard to compare anything to the first back to the future. That's one of the greatest movies of all time I wouldn't say that about the second or the 3rd. I mean certainly it's up there for one of the greatest trilogies of all time. But if I were to make a list of like the 10 greatest comedies back to the Future would be at or near the top. The sequels would not be in the top 10
But I mean that's what's kind of an inherently unfair about the comparison. Like nothing's going to stand up well to back to the future besides the absolute legendary comedies like caddyshack or spinal tap or groundhog Day or blazing saddles.
The original is the best but I like the other 2 also. Great trilogy
Gene loved the first film-it was on his top ten list.
Being English, I never got that 7/11 line for years! I thought he meant 'between the ages of 7 and 11'.
And this and Part II were both filmed simultaneously; which is why Part III was released just a few months after the just OK (for me)Part II. Michael J. Fox said he enjoyed making this over Part II because “he wanted to be a cowboy”.
It helps that compared to the 2nd film the 3rd feels more of a return to form. It's easier to overlook the weaknesses for that reason.
If you notice, Back to the Future 1 is mostly about Marty, 2 is about Emmett and Marty working together, and 3 is about mostly about Emmett
If the series were to continue (and yes, I've played the Telltale games and enjoyed them), I'd like Marty, a teen of 1985, to see 1995. The history's already occurred, so the novelty could be in a 1985 kid reacting to what actually happened in only 10 years since then. Too, it's close enough to the 80s and far enough away from 2015 to not be too affected by that fiction's further-off future.
The Back to the Future series will always be my favorite sci-fi films of all time. At one point, I thought the Star Wars episodes were my favorite, but no; it is Back to the Future I, II, III for sure.
Watching this movie in the theater, I was too distracted by only one Delorean. Where was Doc's Delorean?
It was in the cave. They couldn’t touch it because Marty needed it to get back to 1885 in the first place.
This is an underrated S and E review. I can see where both of them are coming from.
"@mikearminius demo this was the best one out of all 3 in my opinion. I would of thought that there would of been 2 delorians though. Because when the doc went back to 1885 he had the delorian. So why wouldnt there of been a delorian back in 1885 also."
Yes, you are right. At that point there would've been 2 DeLoreans in 1885, but the one in the cave (1885) had to stay there so that Marty and Doc (1955) could find it, fix it and travel back to 1885. He had to leave it as it was. If he messed with it, even a little, Doc (1955) could've not fix the DeLorean in that year and Marty would've been stuck in the 50's, again. Their only choice 'then' was to wait for the timeline to pass by normally (1985) and when Doc builds the time machine again, then go back to 1885 to save Doc, but Marty would've been as old as their parents...
Heavy? Yes, I know...
3:25 "...But it ISN'T only a Western!!!" Haha Siskel
I didn´t agree with Ebert on this one except on one thing "there isn´t that much time travell and paradoxes, basically when they back there it becomes a western", and yeah that´s the main problem with the movie, it doesn´t feel that much like Back to the future, and the romance between doc and clara wasn´t that interesting if you ask me because lacked all the quirkiness of the first one´s love triangle with Marty and his parents and became a cliché romance.
all the other stuff that the movie has to offer is great, like comedy, acting, action etc.
I disagree, I thought the romance was interesting because it was between two normal looking middle aged people with common interests - You almost never see that in a mainstream Hollywood movie these days. Plus, it added more layers to Doc's character, showing that he's more than just an eccentric scientist, and I felt for him when he was conflicted about whether to do what his mind tells him (to go back to the future with Marty) or what his heart says (stay in 1885 with Clara).
Actually, he didn't. Old Biff returned to an alternate 2015, which Doc describes to Marty later in the film. He was erased from existence by the "ripple effect", replaced by an even worse version. This was left ambiguous in the film, but Bob Gale describes it on the DVD commentaries.
I disagree with Ebert here and disagreed with Siskel on #2. I hear what they were saying, but this trilogy is genius in that each one is very similar but stands out on its own, even being a unique genre. Like others mentioned, this disagreement is what made this show fun to watch, especially as it's sincere.
My grades
BTTF 1: A+, perfect movie 👌 with a setup that never had the guts to be done before. So good it's beyond a genre.
Part 2: A-, the effort in having scenes within scenes with the same characters cannot be dismissed--neither can the intense suspense. It is almost a dark dystopian thrilled juxtaposed to a screwball comedy. It was the ending that kinda bothered me. I know its a series, but a perfect film concludes perfectly.
Part 3: A. Near perfect and a fun "Hollywood" western. A great love story for probably the coolest character in this world--Doc Brown. It didn't have the same bliss-buzz as #1, but not too many movies do. I thought it was mediocre as a kid, but love it as an adult. Great message too, if you pay attention
I tended to agree with Ebert more than with Siskel. The Back To The Future trilogy is an exception to that. I'm with Gene all the way on these movies - the first was special, second overblown and the third better. I only wish in their three reviews they would have not only given Michael J Fox more credit but also Crispen Glover from the first and Thomas Wilson in all three. They deserved more than a passing mention for the engaging performances they gave. Still miss this show and these guys.
Ebert missed the whole point. It was supposed to be a cliche western town. That's why they brought in all those old western actors. It was brilliant.
If (when) they ever try to "remake" these films, it will be a TOTAL disaster. Some things deserve to be left alone in their perfection.
Back to the future 3 was really good. The first was the best by far. The second fell off a little but got back on track with 3.
For me the first is best, 3rd is second best, and the 2nd one is 3rd place so I agree with Siskel, just as I did as a kid. Unlike him though I would give all 3 a thumbs up and much bigger now that I have seen the last 5 years of movies.
this is why these two where so awesome! it is not about if a movie is good or bad,is about sharing opinions and pints of view ,showing teh passion you have for something,if you like a bad movie,it doesn't make you and idiot or anything, it is a manner of Taste, i salute you greatest movie critics of all time!
If they had done an actual Old West style town like Ebert wanted, I wonder if he would be complaining that it needed to be more of a movie style Old West town.
I liked this one better than Part 2 but I think they are all outstanding.
I agree with Siskel, it's a lot better than the 2nd!
Can't agree. This one is too much of a retread of the first one. The second brought new things to the table.
Well, it is a mirror of the first one, if you think about it. A lot of the same stuff that happened in the first happens here, but it is still interesting.
Well, the first one is the best, but I still liked the sequels.
I agree with ebert. If I wanted to watch a western movie I would. I wanted to watch a back to the future movie
Funny how much my opinion tracked with Ebert's. When Siskel didn't like 2 I assumed he would hate 3, because I think it's the weakest by far. Instead, he liked it and I found myself agreeing with Ebert on all three reviews.
I’m with Siskel on this one. He likes it because it has plenty of heart and charm, and a solid, coherent plot (something Part II lacked).
@@cHeStEr5434True, but all that is diminished by the superior original movie. The third movie is better than the second movie, but not by much.
Traveling through time doesn't eat their gas, but it empties the plutonium/Mr. fusion. In the first film doc drives Marty home at the end. In the second film they fly to Hill Valley and never fill the tank up at all before going to alternate 1985, and old Biff took it to 1955 and back with no problems. If time travel really emptied the gas tank, they would have noticed an empty tank in 2015 when old Biff brings it back and leaves. Also, in part 3 the arrow punctures the gas line and drains it
One of the rare times I agree with Gene over Roger. It's a very solid movie, and for the third and final in the series, a great finale.
Ebert has a good point. The Old West was not like people usually picture it. It would have been pretty funny to see Marty's suppositions about the Old West (based on what he's seen in movies) get turned upside down in the real West. I guess that was a missed opportunity, but I still think it's a pretty good movie.
It's slapstick, not tombstone, this is the very reason stolz was replaced by Micheal j fox
It's slapstick, not unforgivable, this is the very reason stolz was replaced by Micheal j fox
Ebert is right. Part II was more fun because they play around with the timeline. In Part 3, they're just stuck in the west and it's not as interesting. The story is similar to the first movie where they need to repair the DeLorean to get back home. It's still a good movie and it was nice that they didn't just copy part 2 again with more time travel shenanigans.
I think Ebert has a point here: it really wasn't a realistic depiction of the Old West. Regardledd, the movie is still very enjoyable I think.
Nice shooting there, MJF. That's one steady hand you have.
The problem with Part 3 was it was a snoozefest compared to the original or most of part 1. It was really slow-paced. It wasn't until the very end with the train that the movie had any sense of action and momentum. And this was unexpected coming from Zemeckis who up to this point was known only for really fast, rollicking, zany, action-filled movies. The basic premise of part 3 also fell into the old trap of a sequel repeating the original movie's story, whereas part 2's plot had virtually nothing in common with part 1. In part 3 we are once again stuck in the past and have to concoct a crazy technical exercise to get the juice to get the car back to the future. Boring. Just think if you were writing part 4 now, would you ever write that same climax into the movie? You would realize it would be boring to audiences to see that recycled again.
Siskel was right and Ebert was wrong for once? Wow. All three films were great fun, great entertainment, making it one of the best trilogies of all time!
BTTF 3 is a big step forward from the mess made by BTTF 2. It's much more a western that a time travel movie, but I loved it. Fox, Lloyd, Wilson and Steenburgen and just wonderful.
One of the rare times I totally agree with Siskel
Juggernaut What about with Mrs. Doubtfire? He gave that Thumbs Up.
And Die Hard (1988), and Batman (1989), and Ghost (1990), and The Marrying Man (1991).
Aww...come on, Roger! I've never been able to say that I've always liked Gene's opinions on certain movies, and I've said, several times, that he could be such a stuffed shirt...but here, he's right. This was a great movie! Roger, Unfortunately, ended up being the stuffed shirt here! This movie was less complicated to follow than Back to the Future 2, and it has more of a charm to it than Back to the Future 2. Number 2 is still great...but it's complicated to follow, until you've seen it at least a couple of times.
I love all 3 movies!!! I have to agree with Ebert in regards to pt. 2--it is kind of convoluted but it is enjoyable. There's a lot of heart in all three movies, and I wish they could make a part 4.
+Samus Aran noooo, Back to the Future shines in the fact that unlike other series it has not been exploited, the 3 films shine brilliantly and were left alone without any other franchise spinoffs or toys made out of them.
I said I wish :) I know it's best to just leave it alone. I hate when they ruin something by coming out with a sequel that goes straight to video.
Nah, the third one ends the whole thing in a good way. No need to keep going.
I read that Michael J Fox starred in a late 90’s sitcom called Spin-City and there was an episode that Christopher Lloyd was also in. The episode was titled, ‘Back To The Future part IV’.
I thought for sure Ebert would have thoroughly enjoyed Part 3
i thought this one was kinda slow
The worst of the 3 but still fun to watch during the holidays. Maddog was hilarious.
It showed Tom Wilson is a really good actor. He was pretty unrecognizable as Buford.
3:25 made me laugh
(When logic doesn't work you go for pitch)
Once you understand that the events of Back to the Future 2 rests on the results of this movie, it all makes sense. Instead of backing out of the race at the last minute, Marty hits the Rolls-Royce and becomes the broken Marty in the future. The paradox is set up and solved within the two sequels. One wouldn't work at all without the other. The first movie has it's own continuity. But now that I've figured out the time travel loop they were going for, I love both Back to the Future sequels even more.
Makes me sad that James Cameron couldnt do the same thing with the Terminator movies
"as a western movie this didn't work well".
Buddy, it ain't a western, it has a Delorean time machine in it. Stop with the illogical viewpoint and enjoy the flick, it's fantastic.
Geeez.
Part 3 is cute and for the most part enjoyable--especially, as Siskel pointed out, the burgeoning romance between Lloyd & Steenburgen. Ebert in his written review made the rather absurd wish that the film had presented a realistic depiction of the West as in McCabe & Mrs Miller (!) As much as I love that film, I can't think of two directors whose sensibilities are more diametrically opposed to each other than Altman and Zemeckis.
So might we call that a... Steenburgening romance? :D
Agree with Ebert on all counts. 3 was my least favourite of the trilogy, but still love the entire series as a whole.
i can not decide which one i liked more. out of part 2 and 3 both movies are very different movies and both were fine in their own ways.
They argued a shit ton.
I think Roger Ebert completely missed the bus with his review of Part III. He disliked Part III because Marty went back in time to what is essentially a movie western, rather than a realistic old west. But he had no problem with Marty going forward in time, to what is essentially a cartoon version of the future, in Part II. He also had no problem with Marty going back to an idealized, "Leave it to Beaver" sitcom version of the 1950s in Part I? Why does he demand reality in Part III when hard reality was never a part of the series? Sometimes these guys just picked and chose things to gripe about arbitrarily.
Idealized "leave it to beaver" 1950's ? That's not true at all. Nothing seemed ideal in that decade and the film went as far as pointing out the racism that was prevalent during that era.
For a movie western, Part III presents it pretty blandly.
The charm of this film is the "future" colliding with the Western-style past (as cliched or conventional as it may have been). You'd almost have to make it from the point of view of convention or the jokes and characterizations wouldn't work. Of course, they could have made an entirely different type of movie......and maybe that's what Roger wants.
Gene is right and Roger is dead wrong.
BTTF 3 is damn near perfect. One of the best movies of the series
As I watch more of their reviews I’m starting to notice myself always thinking “what?” When it comes to a lot of Roger’s criticisms. He tried to throw Gene off by saying if it was all a western movie you wouldn’t like it as much. But it’s not all a western so what’s the purpose of thinking in those terms. Perhaps the reason the western bits of this movie work is because they’re sparse. I guess I might come off as dumb to a lot of ppl about this claim but rn I’m on team Gene with this movie.
Most of the movie is a homage to westerns and it’s done in a really sanitized and bland way. It was better than the second movie, but not by much.
What's wrong with Pat Buttram? Roger seemed pretty bothered by that as well as seeing the movie take place in 1855 Hill Valley. I've barely seen Roger dislike a movie for an odd reason like that. Usually it's Gene that doesn't like a movie for an odd reason.
Siskel and Ebert ready to throw hands over BTTF III
I liked it
BTTF 3 was a thousand times better than 2. I think this movie gave Lloyd a chance to do some real acting and touch all of us.
3 gets a bad rap, but I like it.
A bad rap from who? The Back to the Future trilogy as a whole is universally loved, and most agree that Part II was the weakest chapter (yet still great)
Narpin I don't think it's universally loved at all. The first movie is universally loved. The second is a wreck and and the third is just okay.
Any depiction of the future would be fictitious Gene...
Ebert misses the point of the past -- not only is it a homage to several classic westerns, but you're watching the town of Hill Valley itself as a character grow and change over the course of these three films.
Roger Ebert is wrong. The reason all western towns looked the same is because they were literally the same town. The workers on the Continental Railroad were paid extraordinarily good wages for the time, so an enterprising corporation set up a town for the men to spend their money on their one day off per week (on booze, gambling, and prostitutes). As the railroad moved further west, the company disassembled the town, put it on flatcars, and moved west along with it. During the week the company reassembled the town at the new waypoint, and on the weekend it was ready for the train crew. That happened all the way to the Rocky Mountains, when the financiers started importing more and more laborers from China and wages were lowered. Incidentally, that's why San Francisco had/has such a large Chinese population and such a huge Chinatown, because of all the imported labor and because SF was the western terminus of the railroad.
The cliched western town IS the real western town.
this was the best one out of all 3 in my opinion. I would of thought that there would of been 2 delorians though. Because when the doc went back to 1885 he had the delorian. So why wouldnt there of been a delorian back in 1885 also.
Bottom line: The BTTF movies are all amazingly entertaining and the Original is arguably the greatest film of all time.
since Ebert actually lived in western times he felt that the movie and settings were not as genuine
Hold up a second Ebert, you're gonna criticize part 3 for the western movie cliches but the 1950's America cliches in the first one are perfectly acceptable? It's supposed to be fun not historically accurate. Lighten up a bit dude.
because the 1950s cliches are not as overblown and tired as the western ones. there had been a lot of better western parody filsm at that point, but there hadn't been as many 1950s parodies.
I never felt that the 50's cliches were very distracting.
I like the film, but it does have its problems. Various plot holes are apparent; for instance, if Doc Brown was killed in 1885, how is he still alive in 1955 and helping Marty?
or if doc brown just arrived in 1885 where is the delorean he came in ? always bothered me .
@@erikbuehler7336 It’s damaged, been buried in a mineshaft, and awaiting to be uncovered by Marty 70 years later to be fixed up in order to send Marty back to 1985. All this is explained in the letter Doc wrote.
Go on then. The only way he could have been killed in 1885 is by building a time machine to go there. So he must have built it in 1985. He must have got the idea in 55.
"Nobody calls me yella."
Doc should have just siphoned some fuel out of the one in the mine and put it in the Delorean with an empty tank and the newly fixed fuel line. Its not stated if he drained the gas from the one he put in the mine though. Gas normally goes bad in a month or so and hurts a car that is not driven for a while. If he was smart enough to invent a time machine, I think he would have been smart enough to do that.
I have a feeling there wasn't any in there. Maybe there could've been a line in the film about that.
And that's why, nine years later, Roger Ebert killed Gene Siskel.
I generally like most of Ebert's reviews, but in this particular case, he was just being petulant and getting back at Siskel for not liking Part 2. None of the things Ebert mentions make any sense and everything Siskel says does.
This one was a retread of the first. The second was better
I just feel like its the point that the past is movie like just like the first one that movie very much has a classic 50s movie feel
3:25 , ol Rodger hahaha
u are right i noticed that too.
Michael J Fox just seemed cheesey after awhile....
ebert is often more right than siskel but this time siskel is ebert however was right about two
Agree with Ebert
I liked this one. :)
I don't know why, but i never watched this movie till the end it never worked for me, seen it millions of times on tv over the years and somehow i always flip the channel, cause it gives me the creeps, like if the 3rd Terminator was about cowboys, i don't know why but it is so bad for me
Siskel doesn’t like 2, but likes 3 and ebert likes 2 but doesn’t like 3. Go figure.
I love movies trilogys and tv series.
well the frist one was kind of slow too...
But at least the 1950’s setting and having a teenage son see their parents when they were young was way more interesting. The western homages were bland and the romance between Doc and Clara really does little for the movie. Doc was never that interesting enough a character for that.
It’s not a Western Roger! It’s BTF III!