egon1982
Sophomore
@egon1982
Posts: 994
Likes: 268
|
Post by egon1982 on Apr 19, 2017 20:40:09 GMT
Underrated sequel to the 1985 Sci-fi fantasy comedy masterpiece is an enjoyable sequel that is fun yet dark, yet Leonard Maltin seems to dislike this as "unpleasant and without laughs" but he is wrong as this one has great ideas and all.
Saw this 3 times in theaters when i was 8 and enjoyed it as the original and dug III as well.
|
|
|
|
filmfan95
Sophomore
@filmfan95
Posts: 383
Likes: 141
 
|
Post by filmfan95 on Apr 20, 2017 18:51:44 GMT
I'm one of those people who kind of really only really watches the first movie. To me, the first movie has that cult classic feel to it, while the sequels just don't hold up as well. The jokes aren't as funny, and the story isn't as interesting.
I think my main problem with the second movie is that it tries to fit too much story into one movie. We get a trip to 2015 in order to save Marty Jr. Then, after that's done, oh no, 1985 is evil now. We have to figure out what's wrong. Then once they figure out what's wrong, we have to take yet another trip to 1955 again. Granted, this was the most enjoyable part of the movie, given that we had to see Marty avoid his other self. But at that point it felt like overkill, as if the movie should have been done by then. I guess it could be worse. There was originally only going to be one sequel, with the Old West adventure being the last half-hour of the movie. That would have been a huge disaster.
In my mind, they should have split the second film into two movies, ending Part 2 with Marty realizing that Hill Valley has changed for the worst, and then having the plot of Part 3 be the adventure to destroy the almanac. If they still wanted to do the Old West storyline, they could have done a Part 4. It would have worked so well.
|
|
|
|
Post by sugarbiscuits on Apr 20, 2017 22:02:06 GMT
I like to watch all three movies. Though I don't think the third matches the quality of the first and second.
|
|
egon1982
Sophomore
@egon1982
Posts: 994
Likes: 268
|
Post by egon1982 on May 20, 2017 21:19:20 GMT
A 4th? NO, leave it alone and let it be the trilogy it is, you just can't recapture the magic of the trilogy and they continue with stuff like merchandise, comics, novels, books and all that to let fans love the trilogy and all. Ghostbusters remake was a failure and proves GB cannot continue on film after years and proof you can't strike lightning twice. |
|
Seto
Sophomore
@seto
Posts: 315
Likes: 233
|
Post by Seto on May 28, 2017 8:51:48 GMT
Well said Filmfan95. I guess the main complaint with the second movie is it isn't it's own movie. The first third is basically an epilogue of the first film, a slightly lazy attempt at tying up the gag of Marty, Doc and Jennifer all jumping into the Delorean. Then we begin an entirely new plot, concerning Biff taking over the world, and our heroes trying to stop him, which ultimately all leads to a set-up for the third film. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the second film. But without the first, or the third, it falls very flat. |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on May 29, 2017 1:07:32 GMT
This is the only one I saw in a cinema.
Not a big fan of BTTF--I liked it in the day but over time I feel it is kind of artificial about human nature--that someone's personality can change over a chance moment.
But the sequel does have its moments. The idea of Biff altering time, and the way they had Marty going around and avoiding himself in the 1950s was a neat idea.
But the ending sucks for the cliffhanger.
Interesting that altered 80s Biff was a spaghetti western fan. According to Christopher Frayling, when he wrote a book on the subject in the early 80s no one took it seriously. Well clearly Biff did!
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jun 12, 2017 19:53:05 GMT
does it not have a good reputation?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2017 1:05:42 GMT
It's interesting. I really liked it at the time. I watched it a couple of years ago and thought it was crap. Just about gimmicks and all that and weak on story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2017 3:03:28 GMT
I'm one of those people who kind of really only really watches the first movie. To me, the first movie has that cult classic feel to it, while the sequels just don't hold up as well. The jokes aren't as funny, and the story isn't as interesting. I think my main problem with the second movie is that it tries to fit too much story into one movie. We get a trip to 2015 in order to save Marty Jr. Then, after that's done, oh no, 1985 is evil now. We have to figure out what's wrong. Then once they figure out what's wrong, we have to take yet another trip to 1955 again. Granted, this was the most enjoyable part of the movie, given that we had to see Marty avoid his other self. But at that point it felt like overkill, as if the movie should have been done by then. Exactly! I also have to agree with Maltin that it's too dark and not very funny, especially the part that takes place in 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jul 27, 2017 10:54:42 GMT
9/10 Great film.
|
|
klandersen
Sophomore
@klandersen
Posts: 886
Likes: 344
|
Post by klandersen on Aug 9, 2017 16:40:29 GMT
I like all three BTTF movies. This part is fun to watch from the after 2015 point of view. Seeing what projected technology and ideas didn't quite make it to this reality. It is always fun to watch/read stories about a "future" after that future time has happened, but being exposed it before the appointed time gives more insight to the original ideas/concepts. The '80s diner was fun both from the pre-future point of view and from the after point of view.
Even though there are parts of part 3 I enjoy it is my least favorite of the three. I still haven't decided whether I prefer the original over part 2 or part 2 over the original. I like them both just as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 21, 2018 5:21:33 GMT
Unpopular opinion, but I don't really like the future scenes. Michael J Fox in drag? Thomas F Wilson acting like he's on all the coke in Hollywood? It was just too OTT for me. But I like it once they go back to 1955.
I actually prefer the third movie overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by James on Jan 31, 2018 14:46:56 GMT
A good sequel but not nearly as good as the first.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 31, 2018 15:59:37 GMT
It's alright. The second act drags on a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Mar 24, 2018 2:24:57 GMT
Least in the trilogy for me, still pretty good though. Saved by the 1955 stuff which takes the sheen off the whole futuristic stuff to begin with.
I think they could've toned down 2015 a bit, they tried to cram too much eye candy all at once. To that point, they did a very good job with Marty's home. The projection art, the giant flatscreen multi-channel tv, & even though the kitchen was caricatured, they at least tried to keep that logical.
|
|
|
|
Post by rateater on Mar 24, 2018 3:48:26 GMT
don't like michael j fox playing his daughter. rest of the movie is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanaShelbyChancey on Mar 24, 2018 15:36:08 GMT
Back To the Future II was good, I like the many back & forth trips and the 'what ifs'. Only the part of Marty seeing his family in his own house with himself playing his daughter didn't strike the right note for me.
Best way I can describe it, is the 1st & 3rd movies had a lot of what I call "heart" and the second movie didn't have as much heart. Otherwise pretty good.
|
|
