Apparently critics and audiences didn’t like this in 1989 because the movie was too “dark” and “confusing”? Seriously? Doc Brown literally explains the plot in layman’s term and “dark”? The movie is still pretty lighthearted outside of the Biff alternate 1985 (which was done in a pretty over the top way). Hell the 2015 scene is flat out campy. Crazy
shareI think its main problem is the tonal inconsistency.
It bounces from OTT campy/goofball comedy, to dark and serious Sci-Fi (the latter of which seems to take itself too seriously and at times, feels pretentious), to rehashing too much of the first movie’s third act - as if it doesn’t know what it wants to be.
At least the other two movies seemed more focused.
I liked that part about it, the back and forth kept it from feeling too samey. Don't think there's anything pretentious about it
shareBecause they’re confused and dumb.
BTTF II is incredible, and one of the best sequels ever made. Even though it’s not quite as amazing as the first film, they’re both 10/10 masterpieces (with III a lesser but still healthy 7/10)
The future world stuff is just awesome, and the postmodern return to the first film is genius, as is the ‘we’ve had this letter for 70 years’ ending.
Confused and dumb? Yeah sorry, sounds more like a problem with the movie itself than the audience.
Seriously, I counted MANY plot holes and narrative inconsistencies:
1). The scene where Doc tells Marty that travelling into the future from the altered present to stop Biff stealing the time machine would be impossible, even though previously Biff was able to return to the seemingly unaltered future after completing his mission. Why???
2). The movies' opening negates one of the biggest points established in the first movie, as travelling into the future to prevent things that haven't happened yet is both unnecessary (especially as they could be prevented simply by writing a note) and risky, and the characters already know the risks and dangers of such interference, having literally JUST experienced them.
Now, I know that's how the first movie ended, but it was originally intended as a throwaway gag as no sequel was planned, but apparently, they underestimated how much demand there would be for one. Bob Gale himself said that they would've ended the original film differently had a sequel been intended from the get-go.
3). The aspect where the characters are in a constant rush, which is moot at best considering that they have a fully functioning time machine with no technical problems.
It made perfect sense to rush in the first and third movies because with the time machine damaged, threats to their existence and getting back to the present at stake, they were literally in a race against time.
And those are just a handful of examples…
Now, you could argue that I’m merely overthinking and taking it all too seriously. But the fact is, much of the movie IS taking itself quite seriously with the intention of being thought-provoking and at times does come off as pretentious – which brings me to the next point regarding tonal inconsistency:
The over-the-top and campy (too campy for my liking) first act set in the future doesn't fit well with the dark and super-serious approach the rest of the film has – whereas the original film and the 3rd balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary (climactic sequences near the end etc.).
On a similar note, while it might seem needlessly nit-picky to point out how inaccurate this version of the near future (2015) is, this outdated factor is a major contrast to the other two movies’ sense of timelessness.
With all that said, it's no wonder this sequel received such a polarised response among critics and fans during its' initial release.
Reception has improved overtime, yes, though I feel that's mainly due to the growth in classic status the original 1985 movie received and becoming part of a trilogy that's just as iconic overall as said movie.
Absurd nit-picks.
If you’re going to be that anal then you’d need to tear into the first film - like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??
And there was plenty of darkness in BTTF - Marty’s siblings disappearing limb-by-limb in the photo was creepy af, as was his hand starting to vanish while he was playing guitar.
And that’s before we address the mother-son incest and Marty’s plan to sexually molest his mother…
Any ‘darkness’ in BTTF II pales compared to that shit. No, those first two films are perfect, I wouldn’t change a frame. It’s the third film that falls short by lacking much of the fun and invention of I and II, replacing it with a misjudged ‘Doc falls in love’ plotline.
Absurd nit-picks.
If you’re going to be that anal then you’d need to tear into the first film - like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??
And there was plenty of darkness in BTTF - Marty’s siblings disappearing limb-by-limb in the photo was creepy af, as was his hand starting to vanish while he was playing guitar.
It’s the third film that falls short by lacking much of the fun and invention of I and II, replacing it with a misjudged ‘Doc falls in love’ plotline.
Really? I don't think there's anything 'absurd' about my observations. But if you want to address and properly refute anything I've brought up, you're welcome to...
I'm familiar with this common observation, and I think it raises some interesting questions. But is it really a plot hole?
Who knows? Maybe this was something George and Lorraine talked about in an offscreen conversation - that their son bared a lot of resemblance to someone they once knew (and likely named him after), but probably dismissed it as a mere coincidence.
Whoever said that the first movie didn't have it's dark moments? All I said is that it balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary.
And if you think my gripe with the sequel is purely its "dark" aspect, then you clearly have not read my reply correctly.
I don't think the movie was meant to be taken as seriously as you think. It's a fun summer blockbuster, not a 3 hour long Martin Scorsese movie
shareI saw this in the theater and everyone seemed to enjoy it, though there was a collective groan at the ending. Maybe that's what put people off? I really liked it. Second acts are typically dark.
share