BLU RAY REVIEW: THE BACK TO THE FUTURE TRILOGY

Good stuff, Nick. I agree with you 100% that BTTF should have been a single movie. Going to the future to fix problems makes zero sense, and the 2nd movie proved it.

Can't wait to see the extras though.

I'm a lot more forgiving to Part III, since it had to clean up the convoluted mess Part II made, and I'm such a fucking sucker for westerns. The shot of Doc dressed in a duster with that ridiculous rifle is just greatness for me.

Great review though, even though most people are just going to read "I don't think Back to the Future is the best trilogy ever" and go insta-Hulk.

Agreed 100% Nick. Love the original it was seminal film in my youth its untarnished on its own. The sequel was junk.

I have to admit the thrid has its charms and yeah Doc in that duster is such a glorious moment the film had me and then slowly lost me. The 2nd and 3rd acts are simply uneventful. That is criminal but indicative of how great that first film is that so much is forgiven.

Much props to F. Thomas Wilson who like you pointed out was just aces in these films. I have a really hard time understanding how he never made anything else in Hollywood after this trilogy.

Did he rape a goat on the Universal lot or something?

Really good review, even though I disagree with it wholeheartedly. It's not as if I don't understand that everything you're saying about the sequels is true . . . I just . . . Love them. The way other people flip with nostalgia over mediocre films like The Goonies is the way I feel about the sequels. I can't help it. I just can't.

That said- Yes, Thomas Wilson is the MVP of these films. He's stellar. Always was and always will be.

Nice stuff, Nick. I'm also in the 'shoulda been one-and-done' camp.

The first flick just feels so charming and effortless and perfectly contained. The concensus seems to be that Part 2 has appreciated in value over the years, but I can't warm to it. The seedy, dystopian stuff about Biff the porn baron just feels too dark and nasty for a supposedly family friendly franchise, but it's almost preferable to Fox's multiple 'character' comedy. Fox has comic skill and charm to spare, but he's no Peter Sellars or Eddie Murphy.

Part 3 at least returns to the light-hearted tone of the original (although Fox playing an Irishman is, again, excruciating), and doesn't labour as hard as the boisterous, convoluted middle instalment, but by the time the flying train arrives, you're left feeling mild relief that the series has ended with a modicum of charm. That and a burning desire to turn the movie off before ZZ Top unleash 'Doubleback'.

Other than the fact that I despise the second film, I'm in 100% agreement with you. Nice write-up.

Nope, I love all the movies. The first one is the best, of course, but I loved that the second one tweaked the foundations a little bit and the third one's just a really fun take on the Western. It's not the greatest trilogy of all time but considering that almost all the trilogies out there can't stick the landing very well BTTF does really, really well.

The only true failure or misstep of this set is the complete lack of Wilson in any of the special features. I guess they took his "Question Song" a bit too seriously. Or he did.

Agreed. While the second film starts off exceptionally shrill, I like the alt-85 and 50's stuff a great deal, and the third film is a delight (I'm a Steenburgen fanboy, for one). I find this one of the more satisfying trilogies out there.

The original film is a ripe candidate for the Sacred Cow column, I feel.

I mostly agree about the 2 sequels, but I still dig them a lot. The first was the one I watched on VHS over and over again. The other two, not so much. But still, I think this is a very solid trilogy compared to most.

I shall join the chorus and say that I agree about the trilogy. Like Indiana Jones, it would have been better off without the franchising. There are things I like about all of them, but only the first is a great film.

My only disappointment with this review was with the bit about why it works. It isn't some mysterious alchemical reaction of random elements at all. It's the screenplay. One of the finest of its kind ever written, it's a finely-tuned swiss watch of setups and payoffs.

Not a huge deal, but I'm often distressed at how many cinephiles completely overlook the importance of writing to a movie's success.

Enjoyed the review although anybody around for the 90s draft knows I'm got to give any and all bashing of Part II some grief. I'll agree a lot of the 2015 stuff is garish, but considering the decade the film was actually made, I don't think said future being that abrasive was all that out of the question at the time, and I've come to appreciate it as such.

It's funny you brought up Matrix Revolutions in terms of 3, though, since I'm more of the mind BTTF2 has more in common with Reloaded. Both those films shoot for the moon with their core concepts, and dont always hit the mark, but I've always gotten a thrill from watching both films try regardless.

Watching Lloyd's performance on the big screen was a bit of an eye-opener. He plays it with such energy that I noticed that he often looked sweaty or had a bit of drool going on. Hahahah. It worked for the character.

The audience burst into laughter and applause when Doc finishes one of his expository barrages with, "...sending you BACK... TO THE FUTURE!" and points toward the camera.

Part 3 is little seen and nearly forgotten? News to me.

I don't really get this 'there should only have been one' sentiment. Even if you don't think the sequels are as good, it's not like they do anything that should lessen anyone's enjoyment of the first one. Second movie is kind of overbearing and unlikable, but it does try to push the concept further and has a pretty memorable vision of the future. Third one isn't as perfect as the first but I find it about as entertaining. It's a warm movie and takes the time to develop the Doc into a much more rounded character.

Warts and all I certainly don't feel like we'd be better off without them. They went for a different angle each time and found a natural end point where the premise and characters had been taken as far as they needed to go. How many franchises out there can say the same?

So the Eric Stoltz version was a guaranteed classic/success as the released version ended up being? I mean, it used the very same screenplay.

Don't forget they scrapped 2/3rds of a production using that same script. Hell, I've always theorized they executed that script so excellently, because they basically shot the film twice! That's some real moviemaking luxury.


There obviously was some kind of cinematic alchemy when Michael J Fox joined the production. The Filmmakers sure thought something snapped into place. Made everything in that screenplay work where it previously failed. Nick isn't far off base with his assertion.

I have a feeling that in Alternate Universe Land, the Eric Stoltz version exists as an 80s novelty, that came out, probably did OK business, and enjoys a small cult following. People keep making it out to be some sort of train wreck, when it really was exactly what they've been saying all along: Stolz wan't bad in the role, he just wasn't right. They wanted one tone; he was giving another. We'll never know for sure.

All the elements came together in such a perfect way that it's hard to laud one above the other. The script is so precise and well structured that it's little marvel that it gets taught in film courses; Fox and Loyd almost instantaneously and effortlessly let you buy into their friendship, which the whole movie is hinged on; Zemeckis juggles the cartoon character setups with a real emotional center so you actually invest in the outcome of the plot, and on and on and on. Each element deserves its own highlight (and the screenplay can take an extra bow for being the center of the hurricane), and none should be considered a lesser than another.

There's no way that Stoltz would have caused the movie to not work at all. It still would have worked. Fox just made it work significantly better, and in a very specific way. The incredible plotting would still have been in evidence, we just would have lost the central chemistry of the characters. And while that's certainly significant, it's not everything. Great writing delivered in a less than optimal way is still great writing. See any high school Shakespeare production.

And all I'm saying is great writing does not guarantee a great film. Because your post sounded like someone who believed the script ensured the classic Back To The Future we know and love. Nick was obviously talking about the film's alchemy leading to a great success/classic of all time - not just kinda working.

Perhaps you want to make a case that a script as good a BTTF ("One of the finest of its kind ever written, it's a finely-tuned swiss watch of setups and payoffs") is incapable of not at least 'working' if shot by competent crew/crafstman, let alone Zemeckis in his prime.

I'd still disagree with you as I completely concur with Nick that there are many aspects of the script that could have been interpreted wrong. And then there is that mix of dramatic tones/acting styles that have to be juggled just right. Or how the genius of Crispin Glover's portrayal of George Mcfly goes beyond anything on the page, and so greatly improves the 'drama', that without him, it's so not the picture we know and love (as Gale has admitted countless times).

Or balancing that incest angle so it doesn't just creep you out (Because without Lea Thompson, Fox, and the Zemeckis direction, it really does read that way on the page)

etc..

Watching the first film in the theater, I really started to think about the tone that the film sets early on. I think I can see why Eric Stoltz had that darker perspective on the film. We know and love what came of the final result and have a strong sense of hindsight. Stoltz didn't. Considering the depressing circumstances of the McFly family that is established at the beginning, I can understand someone having a different take on it. Depressing family. Peeping tom of a father. Incest. Attempted rape (just how far did Biff get!?).

Obviously, Zemeckis and Gale had a good idea of what they were going for. For whatever reason, they couldn't get on Stoltz wavelength (and vice versa) and they made the right choice (there's that hindsight again). I think Greg Clark is right in that the movie would've been ok had they finished the movie with Stoltz, but it feels really easy to be certain that it would not have been the film we love today.

On a separate note...

I remember listening to the commentaries on the DVD release of the trilogy where either Zemeckis or Gale talked about one of the early screenings of the film. The moment where the audience "got" the heart of the movie was the moment Marty realizes that he's looking at his father in 1955. That was where it clicked. It wasn't the setup. It wasn't the time machine stuff. It was the true heart of the film.

You could see in the snippets they showed that Stoltz just didn't have the comedic timing that they needed to make the movie funnier. He was just too damn serious, and the movie's actually got some fairly serious things to take the audience through that would be insufferable if our guide, which is Marty, didn't give some levity to everything. And you kinda can't direct funny. The actor's either funny or he isn't. Now, Tarantino got a funny performance out of Stoltz, and other directors have as well, but that was all after BTTF so maybe Stoltz figured it out.

There's tonal shifts for sure if you just read the screenplay without Fox's reaction shots or timing. You go from depressing family life to crazy wacky scientist in two scenes. It's a complicated screenplay. That's why I don't buy the movie as a happy accident. Fox carries this fucking thing on his back, and it's a masterful performance.

Plus, Stoltz came off MASK. MASK is pretty damn serious, and this movie's supposed to be the opposite of that. Gotta dig that Stoltz hair, though.

Two great back to back posts right there. Thats exactly why I stay at Chud.

Crispin Glover really is great in that performance and really Zemeckis caught lightning in a bottle with Crispin and F.Thomas Wilson.

Just got the blu-ray in the mail today!

I love that Drew Struzan gets some love on the new documentaries on the set. And a quick little clip of him talking about it.