They really don't make classics like this anymore
For me, I like the second one .... set in 2015, only 9 years to go until we have hover cars, and rehydrated pizzas which grow from the size of a bottle top in about 5 seconds.... can't wait!
3 is great too....
2006-08-21 22:41:14 · 47 answers · asked by Morph 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
If it weren't for the very end (where they set up the coming sequels) they really could have stopped with the extremely excellent first one.
Perhaps if I had waited for it to come out as a rental I would have enjoyed the second, but since I paid good money at the theater for what was, essentially, an inexcusable advertisement for the third movie, I'm afraid I'm ruined from ever liking the second one.
The third was enjoyable, but I never paid for the tickets for almost all of my friends to drag them to that one like I did with the first.
Final verdict: the first was by far the best.
2006-08-22 03:21:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as sequels go, generally the original is better (yes, there ARE some exceptions) and that holds true for the Back to the Future trilogy. Back to the Future was much better than numbers II and III.
Crispin Glover was funny as hell Marty's nerdy father and Lea Thompson was also funny as his sex-crazed mother. Future 2 had some of those same elements but Future 3 was completely lacking (other than Christopher Lloyd, who is always great).
The third movie was just an effort to make money off a popular movie franchise that started to go downhill...fast.
2006-08-21 23:20:57 · answer #2 · answered by robobbyta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first one
2006-08-22 03:54:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first one, for its ingenuity, taut storytelling and sense of fun. They had not planned on any sequels (the 'to be continued' at the end was added later), and the film is the only one which stands on its own.
However the second deserves credit for creating more plot twists and turns, and like many sequels (eg: Empire Strikes Back) being darker than the original.
2006-08-21 23:00:20 · answer #4 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first one.
2006-08-21 22:46:41 · answer #5 · answered by FL Girl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first is an absolute classic, but as a film the second one gets my vote too!
Superb trilogy, but there is a reason they stopped after the third, it was no-where near the other 2!
2006-08-21 23:30:02 · answer #6 · answered by The Good, The Bad and The Crouch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to agree that the second one is better, not in terms of production or storyline but because at least a little imagination is required to create a vision of the future.
In real 'movie' terms, the third probably has the greatest production value, but the whole 'western' era has been done to death and was most likely chosen for 'style' and convenience to shooting.
2006-08-21 22:49:49 · answer #7 · answered by le_coupe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For me it was the first. Not because of the era but because it was a fresh look at time travel. As for looking forward to 2015, I remember looking forward to 1984 and 2001, following those films - they were way off mark too.
2006-08-21 22:48:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like the second one too. I think it's funny how when Doc realises they have to go back to the time they did in the first one and he says something like-
"Either there is a time paradox keeping us around that date, or it is just a freaky coincidence."
Those aren't the exact words (cause I cant remember them), but they mean the same thing.
2006-08-21 22:55:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that both the first and the second one tie. Back to the Future is a really good movie.
2006-08-21 22:54:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋