Why all the hoops to jump through, Double Bobby? (The nickname I’ve given Zemeckis and Gale, which I have totally earned the right to give) Why not just set a science fiction story in the dang future and have fun with the speculative fiction of it all? In Part II, they certainly got to, with delightful results. But it also renders the film less as a pure sci-fi piece and more of a 1950s period piece with sci-fi window dressing. Yes, I know the first film’s usage of the title cleverly frames “the present” as “the future” they need to get “back to” having been stuck in 1955. If you give me a title like Back to the Future, I expect to see the future. But if you’ll allow me the time, I would love to make my case as to why Back to the Future Part II is a better watch than the OG Back to the Future.Ī simple distinction. I’m as wrong as Doc’s naysayers, I’m as dumb as Future Biff, I should make like a tree and get out of here. And this milestone gives me the confidence to say something out loud I’ve only privately thought among my film fan friends: I think Part II just might be better than Part I. In this year of our Lord 2019, it’s celebrating its 30th anniversary. And boy am I glad he did.īack to the Future Part II was released in theatres in 1989. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, he was convinced to follow the car once it flies into the air. Zemeckis initially wanted its story to end on his cliffhanger forever - until, buoyed by returning stars Michael J. The classic blockbuster, from director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Bob Gale, changed the game in 1985.
“Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.” With this deliciously simple, tantalizing line of crisp screenwriting - followed soon thereafter by the dope visual effect of a damn flying car - objective masterpiece Back to the Future ends with a bang.
0 kommentar(er)
