As far back as I can remember I've been a huge fan of the Back to the Future trilogy, my purpose for this writing muse however is not to address the trilogy as a whole, but just parts 2 and 3 and out of those,
mainly just 3. The original Back to the Future is nothing short of sheer cinematic perfection and should be held in the same high regard (if not higher) as the likes of Led Zeppelin 4 and the book of Proverbs.
(If you don't agree with the above statment, you are an idiot.)
For this reason I have chosen to strictly focus on 2 and 3. Also as far back as I can remember I've considered BTTF part 2 to be a close second behind part 1 in greatness and found part 3 to be a distant, mild embarrassment to 1 and 2. Similar to, but not as much of an embarrassment as say, Terminator 3 "Rise of the Machines" or The Land Before Time 3 "Littlefoot Still Hasn't Accepted the Fact He'll Be Extinct Soon." Recently however, my boyish presumptions have been shatterd and my opinion has been changed.
I spent the better half of my monday evening watching the trilogy from start to finish, which is something that I enjoy doing atleast once, if not more times a year, because I'm a 22 year old college drop out that believes watching Michael J. Fox movies is a much better way to spend time then working, reading or just pretty much anything. By the time part 2 was winding to an end, Biff had been set in his place again, the sports almanac had been destroyed, no pictures of loved ones were fading out of exsistence. Everything was as it should be. By this point, I'll be honest, I had very little desire to even put in the part 3 dvd. I've seen it dozens of times and each time it's always a bit of a let down. But still, I had gotten this far, I couldn't stop now and just leave the doc hangin in 1885 and Marty still wondering around 1955 Hill Valley. So i did the noble thing, and pressed on, but this time it was different, it was as if something had changed from the last time I watched it up to this time, because it was great! I loved every second of it, it was like watching 'Friends' for the first time. I was engrossed in every scene, laughing at every joke, I may have even cried a little bit....who's to say? Even things that I used to think I didn't like about the film before, I ended up some how falling in love with them this time around.
For example, I was never really fond of the character of Buford 'Mad Dog' Tannen (the 1885 version of Biff) or the fact that Doc has a love interest in the third film. I mean come on, it's Dr. Emmett Brown we're talking about here! The man has devoted his entire life to science and you're trying to tell me he ends up falling for some doctor Quinn medicine woman school teacher?! But for some unknown reason this time I was completely ok with it. I thought the love-at-first-sight meeting of Doc and Clara was charming and gave more depth and insight to the character of Doc Brown, allowing him to be, for once, other things then just a zany scientist. And I'm convinced after this last viewing of part 3 that 'Mad Dog' is the best version of Biff we see in the whole trilogy. Bottom line: for the first time, 3 was better then 2. Maybe it has something to do with me getting older, that I appreciate certain qualities about the film now that I never did before? I honestly couldn't tell you, but if you are a Back to the Future fan, I encourage you to rewatch and reassess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dude! I'm so glad you're here. This is awesome. I tend to like 2 better than 3, with a few qualifications.
ReplyDelete1 and 2 are almost a package deal. They can almost be seen as two perspectives on pretty much the same events.
In 2, they go to 2015, but it's only for the sake of going back to events in 1955. We see parts of the first movie in the second and that was part of the thrill for me. It's like: "Whoa! Cool. I remember that part from the first one. Now I'm over here looking at it from this angle."
That's why I liked the 2nd one. The 3rd just seem to divert from the formula almost entirely. They went to 1885 and pretty much stayed there. No crisscrossing back and forth through time. It just turns into a mediocre Western with all the cliches and a mediocre love story with almost all the cliches.
In the first movie, it was about the love story between Marty's parents; in the second, it was about Marty's own love. But we could still see from the 3rd person perspective. In the 3rd movie, it takes a 1st person perspective for Doc and it just ruins the flow for me. 3 seems out of joint with 1 and 2, even if 2 is a little zanier than it needs to be.
3 would have worked for me if it they turned 1885 into a good Western and Doc's romance into a good romance. 1 worked - and is a classic - because it was a good romance AND the time-travel crisscrossing was true to form. 2 worked - barely - not because Marty's romance was in itself interesting, but because it was viewed in the midst of all the time-travel crisscrossing.
The time-travel crisscrossing is what makes the Back to the Future movies for me. The 3rd fails for me on that level.
But all are agreed that the first one is a classic and neither 2 nor 3 can touch. Gotta love the soundtrack! John Williams is a genius.
Part 3 did divert from the formula quite a bit and I think that was probably the main reason why growing up I never really thought much about it. I, like you, wanted to see the familiar sights and scenerios that 1 and 2 offer up, but now I think I appreciate 3 more because it is different from the formula, it isn't really at all what you'd expect. I think Zemeckis went out on a limb with it to direct something not everyone was probably going to follow and understand and love as much as they had with the previous parts 1 and 2 and I respect that a lot.
ReplyDeleteWhen ever you get into making sequels to movies I feel like it becomes a hard task to continue to make things new and fresh with the characters, places and settings while still at the same time having to balance new ideas with sticking to the original basic storyline. Which is why many many film sequels end up being terrible, because they either stuck too close to the original (or latest installment in the franchise) or went off on some wild tangent that doesn't really pertain to anything the previous film was about. Have you ever seen Halloween 3? It's a perfect example of going too far off in a different direction without staying true to the roots. Halloween 3 doesn't have Micheal Myers, or even mention him in the entire movie. Talk about going in a different direction!!
I feel BTTF 3 is one of the rare cases where almost a complete change of movie formula ended up working out really well. It's like you said, 2 was cool because you got to rewatch events from 1 in different views and standpoints but if they would have done something similar with part 3 it would have gotten old quick and in turn would have also taken away from the magic that 2 gave us by letting us re-see those classic scenes from part 1.
But you are of course entitled to your reasons for disliking the movie. And you are right, we can always agree that part 1 is phenomenal, although I will have to call you out on the John Williams reference, Alan Silvestri did the music for BTTF. Sorry my friend hahah
Oh, you're right!! lol Alan Silvestri. Thanks man. Btw, I think I like BTTF 1 more than the Book of Proverbs. I'll have to think about it though.
ReplyDeleteI follow your point about diverting from the formula. In my case, though, the formula was where the magic was. Agreed though. The formula can get formulaic quickly. Maybe that's why James Cameron backed off the Terminator franchise after part 2?
But do you think there's a good and a bad way to stick to the formula? All in all, the Die Hard franchise did pretty good. But it is rare. Star Wars fell apart (for me?) with episodes 1,2, and 3. The Hannibal Lecter got old after 'Hannibal'. Indiana Jones was embarrassing with the 4th installment. The Matrix crumbled. And if you don't already like it, the Bourne movies were the same gum, different flavor.
Movies that broke from the formula, but were successful?: Aliens (from a suspense-filled horror flick to a superb action/thriller), did T2 break from Terminator? (maybe it just supplemented it), Evil Dead 2 . . .
But back to my point. To me, I think BTTF 3 would have been served better as an Aliens, or a T2, or even a Die Hard 2. Something that didn't just stick to the formula (perhaps?), but supplemented it in some creative way.
Which I guess they did. But that gets back to my point about Romances and Westerns. To me, at least, Doc 'qua scientist' outshines Doc 'qua lover'. lol. So, to make up for that, the movie really had to make a good romance, and it just didn't take my fancy.
Regarding Westerns: if Marty had gone back to a Deadwood-type Western, a real, Unforgiven, Quiet Man like western, the movie would have worked a lot more for me. But BTTF 3's western-world is filled with cliches and cardboard cut-out characters and predictability.
I haven't seen Halloween 3, but it does seem very, very foolish not to have Michael Myers - like having a Jaws movie with no sharks.
But it probably has to do with my personal sentiments. Maybe the future appeals to me more than the past, or maybe it's just the future was done better in BTTF 2 than the past was done in BTTF 3.
I do agree, though, that it might have been time to 'go in a different direction' with the formula. But the new ingredients just seemed to be droplets of oil in a cool glass of water. I really think I cringed every time Doc was with the love interest. lol
I agree and disagree with matt at the same time. 3 for me was the weakest. I agree that the love story seemed forced and I missed the quirky Doc from 1 & 2. The character seemed to shift gears. Maybe thats what living in the old west will do to you. I disagree with the town needing to be a clint Eastwood type of western. The seriousness of that would be a complete departure. (I'm assuming somethings about you right now matt) Maybe the goofiness of Marty against the seriousness of Unforgiven type? Maybe, that coud be funny.
ReplyDeleteZach, you bring up a good point about sequels. There needs to be change but somehow not losing the magic of the movie that came before. Spider-man 2 and X-men 2 are examples, in my opinion, of outshining the first.
Can we all agree on the fact that a flying skateboard is awesome and Elizabeth shue in pt. 2 we all want to kiss on the mouth?