This even helps expand Doc beyond the usual mad-scientist role who messes up everything with his invention of the time-travel machine (the DeLorean, that is) since the first film.
Perhaps those were some of the reasons why Back to the Future Part III ended up being the least talked-about film in the trilogy.Īnd yet, when I first watched Back to the Future Part III back in the 90s and kept revisiting the movie ever since, I’m actually glad that Zemeckis and Gale made the right decision settling down without digging deeper into the convoluted-storyline territory previously explored in the second film.īut their biggest creative risk of all has to be the introduction of a romantic angle between Christopher Lloyd’s Doc Emmett Brown and Mary Steenburgen’s Clara Clayton. Not to mention it did feel like a scaled-down Back to the Future movie that lacked the same creative heights and high-stake situations seen in the first two films. Fox) found himself stuck in the alternate, gritty 1985 timeline.īut Back to the Future Part III? Instead of concluding the trilogy with something more conceptually ambitious, returning director Robert Zemeckis and his co-creator Bob Gale opted for a more old-fashioned approach by incorporating the western genre into their time-travel film. Then, there’s the extended scene involving Marty McFly (Michael J. Despite the increasingly-convoluted plot seen in the Back to the Future Part II, part of the sequel’s success lies on its high-concept premise beginning with the futuristic 2015 segment (everything from the hoverboard to the self-lacing Nike sneakers and auto-adjusting jacket has since become a pop-culture phenomenon even until today). The second film - released in 1989 - was a highly-ambitious sequel that took the first movie’s time-travel concept and expanded it further.
The first Back to the Future in 1985 was the epitome of what a modern time-travel movie should be and a thrilling sci-fi adventure that remained as timeless as ever. If you would ask most people who had seen the trilogy, don’t be surprised if they pick the first two films as among their favourites. While it was far from being labelled as a box-office fiasco (US$246.1 million against a US$40 million budget), it still hard to shake off the feeling that Back to the Future Part III ended up being the lowest-grossing film in the trilogy. If that’s not enough, it even made less money with a worldwide box-office total at US$246.1 million - a far cry from the first two movies that raked higher between US$335 and US$389 million. Here’s the thing about Back to the Future Part III - the third and final instalment of the beloved time-travel movie franchise didn’t get as much attention as the first two films.