Originally Posted by LordSlaytan
I have always liked the second one
way more than the third. It's not that I think the third stinks, it's just that I couldn't get into the silly western side of it. Just
too silly for my taste.
I like them best in the order they came out.
...but to be honest...I could go the rest of my life never seeing any of them ever again and feel just fine and dandy about it.
I would have agreed with you a while back, until I recently re-watched them. Two was just too damn campy, and I felt they got away from what was great about the characters. As for the third one, I had remembered it being the worst, but, after many years have gone by, it just seems to hold up better than II. They expand on the Doc Brown character (which is a great character, btw) and the comedy is way lessed forced....
It was weird, during the first film, I felt that excitment I remembered from watching Back to the Future back when it came out. Also, the dual predicament they set up is ingenious. Once I got to the second one, I just lost interest almost immediately, as the film just didn't have the same excitement and rhythm to keep us interested (us being the people who were watching the film along with me).
So we finished that film and not many of us felt the need to put Part III in, as we all had sort of remembered it not being good. Alas, after fifteen minutes we were all beck into it. It's paced way better, and as I mentioned before, the comedy had us rolling. At the climax of the film, we all seemed to actually care what happened to Doc Brown, and when it was over, we all were commenting on how much better it was than we remembered it.
The western stuff didn;t seem goofy to me, Marty aside. I loved 'ol inventor Doc Brown making rifle scopes and ice machines back in the old west, and the Clint Eastwood jokes are hilarious....
To each his own, though...-