Back To The Future is a true Masterpiece

Tools    





Back to the future is the best movie francise to come out of the 1980ts in my opinion.
Even bether than ghostbusters.
Its just such a iconic classic time travel adventure movie.



Nah, it's just a very well made fun children movie, but it's far from a masterpiece.

I dissagree.



I constantly have an inner struggle debating on whether if this movie is a masterpiece or not. I even wrote a five-star rating review on why this film is a masterpiece.

I think, describing whether if a film is a masterpiece or not is academic, and it can have so many answers that sometimes it's just better off not bother the effort. Because when I think of whether to qualify it as a masterpiece or not, I think of how tight the script is, how every scene has a meaningful effect of driving the plot forward rather than merely existing for the mere sake of comedy. There's a reason why this movie is so rewatchable. Even though it's almost two hours long in its runtime, it's a very polished film with a script that knows exactly the direction it wants to go and the kind of emotions it wants to elicit from the audience, leaving very little room for pointless meandering that leaves the audience bored. It's one of those "journey films" that put audiences on a journey through an adventure, where they travel alongside the main character on a trip and, alongside the MC, learn something meaningful by the end, feeling as fulfilled as the MC. Star Wars: A New Hope was crafted in such a way as well using Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey formula, and it too was polished and engaging because of the effective formula. Same with Indiana Jones.

I think, looking back at Back to the Future now is probably a bit unfair because movies have become a lot more complex in their structuring. Complexity used to be more niched back then, not the norm, but nowadays, everyone's vying for an artsy Cannes-level mind-trip. So we're in a position in time that's a bit different from the '80s, especially when you consider that it's a time that's saturated with either muscle-bound action movies the likes of Arnold and Stallone or B-level horror movies the likes of Jason and Freddy. The mainstream market was pretty different back in the day, and Back to the Future was an interesting balance of heartwarming and cleverness amidst the chaos without the saccharine and schmaltz that comes with Spielberg-directed movies (like E.T.).

But I think its well-crafted script aside, it's also because of how many memorable moments there were. Much like Ghostbusters, a lot of the film are now iconic parts of pop culture, be it the Delorean, Doc Brown, its take on time travel mechanics or that version of Johnny B. Goode that I preferred over the original. Back to the Future didn't simply entertain the audience with cheap laughs and fancy gimmicks, it stood out in history with its shiny Gibson ES-345 on top of the stage like a rock star. That might be an odd way to describe the movie, but I feel like that's the most appropriate way of describing how it stands out as a memorable movie with iconic scenes, the kind that stick with people for generations to come. The clocktower scene, the son trying to matchmake his own mother with his father while earning respect for his dad, the 1.21 Gigawatts, the 88mph; all these little touches just add to how unique the film has become as a science fiction instead of just another generic romcom.



I think that masterpiece in art is a word that refers to the best works of art of a given type. That's what the word says "it is the master piece" of its category. In Portuguese, the word 'masterpiece" literally means "prime work".

I regard Back to the Future as a masterpiece in the sense that it is the pinnacle of the traditional popcorn teenager blockbuster movie: suberbly entertaining has great memorable characters and is impeccably paced. It stands as one of the prime work of the genre.

Actually, I can't think of a blockbuster movie made in the last 10 years that is as good as Back to the Future, today blockbuster movies tend to be less natural and organic, instead, they are pre-packaged products made to sell tickets on pure hype. Back in the 1980s blockbuster movies had to buildup an audience during its run, so success or failure was determined by the quality of the movie as perceived by the audience. Today, success or failure is determined by pre-release hype (see Avengers 4, most people didn't like it much but everybody saw it because they were "supposed to").



Actually, I can't think of a blockbuster movie made in the last 10 years that is as good as Back to the Future, today blockbuster movies tend to be less natural and organic, instead, they are pre-packaged products made to sell tickets on pure hype. Back in the 1980s blockbuster movies had to buildup an audience during its run, so success or failure was determined by the quality of the movie as perceived by the audience. Today, success or failure is determined by pre-release hype (see Avengers 4, most people didn't like it much but everybody saw it because they were "supposed to").
Also worth noting is that a lot of the blockbusters today rely a lot more on star power, the kind of technique used by the aforementioned '80s action movies I mentioned earlier. Even comedies and teen drama like Back to the Future that's made today rely on star power instead of a unique and memorable script (with few exceptions by auteurs like Edgar Wright's Baby Driver). It also doesn't help that a lot of the so-called blockbusters today rely on the nostalgia factor, even something like La La Land which is simply paying tribute to musicals of old. I think at some point, people just stopped bothering coming up with original content and just work to point out, "Hey, remember that?! Remember?!" Hell, one of the most popular blockbuster franchise we had was The Expendables, and remember what its main appeal was? Old action stars.

Ghostbusters was a unique idea that happened to have a brilliant actor like Bill Murray, not the other way around. Back to the Future was a unique idea that happened to pay tribute to '50s pop culture, not making it the central focus. In fact, I would even go so far to say Speed had the unique idea of bomb on a bus going above 50mph that happened to star that one guy from Bill and Ted and Point Break. The conversation in Hollywood most likely didn't go, "Hey, it's 1994; Keanu Reeves seems like a Triple-A actor at this point. We should star him in an action blockbuster."

I think to be fair though, we did get a fair share of comedies or dramedies that did try, but fell short of their vision (or were not unique enough to be as iconic in cinematic history). Happy Death Day was not bad, even though it's more of a parody and not nearly mainstream enough to be considered a blockbuster. There's also The Lego Movie with its own unique storyline about individuality. And if we're going into animated movies, there's also Pixar with its own relatively quality return in their films like Coco and Inside Out, both films unique and emotional. There's also Pacific Rim, but that didn't have the kind of emotional storytelling that could seal its place in iconic cinema history. You can only do so much paying fanservice with giant robots and kaijus. There's still need to be emotional depth.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I would say the first one is a masterpiece, the third one is good, and the second one is just okay. But the best series to come out of the 80s are the Indiana Jones movies, and maybe the Mad Max sequels.



Welcome to the human race...
I'd put forth Mad Max: Fury Road as a blockbuster from the past 10 years that matches Back to the Future - personally, I think it might outdo it, albeit with the acknowledgment that they are two radically different films playing to different standards. The craftsmanship and writing on display is strong enough to compensate for any accusations of relying on nostalgia and pre-packaged hype - if anything, I recall people being skeptical about George Miller bringing Mad Max back for the first time in 30 years not just because there would (understandably) be no Mel Gibson but because Beyond Thunderdome had already watered the franchise down and he spent most of the intervening time working on kids' movies like Babe or Happy Feet. At the very least, I don't think you can arbitrarily lump it in with the likes of Jurassic World.
__________________
Iro is to reviews as Kubrick is to films.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Mad Max: Fury Road is good too, but I still like the 2nd and 3rd one the best. Perhaps Fury Road will grow on me more overtime.

As for Back to the Future, in some ways the third one is the best for me, because I really like the way they wrap things up, and as far as a series ending goes, it has one of the best ones. But he the first one is still the first so maybe that makes it the best because it's the first.



Leben findet einen weg...
Nah, it's just a very well made fun children movie, but it's far from a masterpiece.
Murder, attempted murder, underage drinking, swearing, racism and racist language, underage smoking, a hanging scene in the 3rd movie, and the original has a rape scene.
Yep... kids movie.

Although, Zemeckis has a knack for making movies and getting them marketed to kids. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is another of his.
__________________
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.

Bots gotta be bottin'



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well my parents showed me the Back to the Future movies, when I was 8 or 9 and I was able to handle all those things. Was I a tougher kid than most?



Leben findet einen weg...
Well my parents showed me the Back to the Future movies, when I was 8 or 9 and I was able to handle all those things. Was I a tougher kid than most?
I watched BTTF at around 5 or 6 I think. I was watching stuff like RoboCop and Predator on VHS at 7.

I just think people didn't care much back in the day tbh.
These days everything is analysed and judged, usually before it's even released.

It's like Gremlins creating the PG-13 rating with the MPAA.
Kids were going to see it, getting scared, and the parents freaked out.
Movies of old were just seen at face value.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit... it's got cartoons in it... must be for kids.
Gremlins... set during Christmas and has little critters in it... must be for kids.
RoboCop... it's a robot policeman movie... must be for kids. Hell, RoboCop even had a toyline.

Kids back in the old days... if something was scary or uncomfortable, they'd say so, and not watch that movie again.
I'm one of them. If I didn't like it, meh. I wouldn't watch it again.
Simple.

These days though kids are sappy snowflakes, offended at absolutely anything that's set outside their personal safety bubble... and they take to the internet to voice their opinion as if it actually has any meaning.
Studios though, fear them. A single bad piece of press from one millennial can ruin a movie's returns.



These days though kids are sappy snowflakes, offended at absolutely anything that's set outside their personal safety bubble... and they take to the internet to voice their opinion as if it actually has any meaning.
Studios though, fear them. A single bad piece of press from one millennial can ruin a movie's returns.
A pretty neat dystopia summary right there.



Welcome to the human race...
Give me a break. Can either of you actually name a movie that had its returns ruined (not diminished, ruined) by "a single bad piece of press from one millennial" or anything like that? Bryan Singer was outed as a literal sex offender in the lead-up to Bohemian Rhapsody's release and it still made at least a billion dollars and won four Oscars. People constantly critcised the likes of Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey for romanticising unhealthy relationship dynamics and they were still hits. It's not like a six-year-old watching Back to the Future for the first time is getting on the Internet immediately afterwards to complain about its light-handed approach to attempted rape (you gotta admit it's at least a little weird to let the guy who assaulted your wife in high school clean your car thirty years later) because they probably won't process much of anything past the wacky scientist and the flashy car.



Give me a break. Can either of you actually name a movie that had its returns ruined (not diminished, ruined) by "a single bad piece of press from one millennial" or anything like that? Bryan Singer was outed as a literal sex offender in the lead-up to Bohemian Rhapsody's release and it still made at least a billion dollars and won four Oscars. People constantly critcised the likes of Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey for romanticising unhealthy relationship dynamics and they were still hits. It's not like a six-year-old watching Back to the Future for the first time is getting on the Internet immediately afterwards to complain about its light-handed approach to attempted rape (you gotta admit it's at least a little weird to let the guy who assaulted your wife in high school clean your car thirty years later) because they probably won't process much of anything past the wacky scientist and the flashy car.
To be fair:
1. The Bryan Singer situation had more to do with the person, not the movie's content, which I believe was the discussion earlier, that adult content deemed too violent might attract attention.

2. The last Twilight movie was 2012. I don't really follow politics, so I'm unfamiliar with this, but I feel like millennials were starting to get into the spotlight around the 2010s, which is also when triggered people with their so-called "activist movements" started to become more vocal. These might not have necessarily affected profit, but I just can't help but think that it might have led to some of the creative decisions we see in movies today that pandered to these triggered people, the kind (of decisions) where political agendas are favored over quality storytelling.

3. 50 Shades was universally frowned upon, profitable or not. And to be fair, 50 Shades was nothing compared to far more graphic films in the old days that openly took on controversial subjects, exploited them for all they're worth and got banned in certain countries (the original "I Spit on Your Grave" and "Cannibal Holocaust" for example). 50 Shades was practically foreplay. Nowadays, you have to water it down with censored scenes, toning the violence way down to even get a pass.



Welcome to the human race...
1. Fair point.
2. If you don't really follow politics, how much can you judge a film for weighing political agendas against quality storytelling? There's more to it than just referring to "triggered people" like they're a distinct demographic.
3. That's...what I said? That a "universally frowned upon" film still being profitable disproves Rodent's point about bad press ruining a film's profits. Not sure what Cannibal Holocaust has to do with anything.



1. Fair point.
2. If you don't really follow politics, how much can you judge a film for weighing political agendas against quality storytelling? There's more to it than just referring to "triggered people" like they're a distinct demographic.
3. That's...what I said? That a "universally frowned upon" film still being profitable disproves Rodent's point about bad press ruining a film's profits. Not sure what Cannibal Holocaust has to do with anything.
2. Well, the kind of politics I was referring to was the more general kind like a movie solely existing just to have a female version of a pre-existing franchise or a script that leans to an unrealistic level that men are all scum, etc. That's the kind of politics I was referring to.

3. My point wasn't that these frowned upon films were not profitable; my point was that the truly controversial kind of films don't even get to make profit because they aren't even greenlit in the first place, or at least not allowed for widespread release. My point was that 50 Shades' content is only allowed to be on-screen because it isn't the kind of gratuitous violence existing in films discussed by The Rodent or older films like I Spit on Your Grave and Cannibal Holocaust (where a real life turtle was slaughtered for the making of the film). 50 Shades not only earned profit but was allowed to be released because it's softcore porn at best, not the kind of hardcore controversial content we experienced back in the day. Something like "SalÚ, or the 120 Days of Sodom" would have been banned everywhere immediately the moment news of its production hit the Internet. Hell, even the first Human Centipede wasn't that graphic in comparison.

I feel like there was a time when such exploitation films were more prevalent and widespread than during the sensitive era we have today. There's merit to Rodent's point because there have been news of movies having their content changed because of controversial subjects that are deemed too, god forbid, offensive. Robert Downey Jr. was asked a very good question by Joe Rogan on his podcast: could he pull off the blackface character from Tropic Thunder today? The answer is most likely a no. They would have a hard time getting it to be released in fear of profit loss resulting from backlash. It's not impossible, but it's harder to do so today (unless you're a big name like Spike Lee or you're someone actively known for getting the big money through your content, controversial or not, like Tarantino).



I'd put forth Mad Max: Fury Road as a blockbuster from the past 10 years that matches Back to the Future - personally, I think it might outdo it, albeit with the acknowledgment that they are two radically different films playing to different standards. The craftsmanship and writing on display is strong enough to compensate for any accusations of relying on nostalgia and pre-packaged hype - if anything, I recall people being skeptical about George Miller bringing Mad Max back for the first time in 30 years not just because there would (understandably) be no Mel Gibson but because Beyond Thunderdome had already watered the franchise down and he spent most of the intervening time working on kids' movies like Babe or Happy Feet. At the very least, I don't think you can arbitrarily lump it in with the likes of Jurassic World.
Fury Road is indeed an exceptional movie, perhaps the best recent blockbuster, I would rate it 9/10. I still would rate Back to the Future a bit higher, maybe it's because I have a certain bias for watching it several times over many years but it's because if flows in such natural way.



Welcome to the human race...
2. Well, the kind of politics I was referring to was the more general kind like a movie solely existing just to have a female version of a pre-existing franchise or a script that leans to an unrealistic level that men are all scum, etc. That's the kind of politics I was referring to.
So entry-level left-leaning identity politics, then. Not above criticism, but deserving of more than some blanket complaint about people being too triggered or offended. Of course, it's only fair to take into account the politics a film may be projecting (deliberately or not) as part of its overall quality, but it's not like sanding off the edges on films is something that cropped up in the last few years nor is the matter of politics overtaking quality storytelling limited to the left.

3. My point wasn't that these frowned upon films were not profitable; my point was that the truly controversial kind of films don't even get to make profit because they aren't even greenlit in the first place, or at least not allowed for widespread release. My point was that 50 Shades' content is only allowed to be on-screen because it isn't the kind of gratuitous violence existing in films discussed by The Rodent or older films like I Spit on Your Grave and Cannibal Holocaust (where a real life turtle was slaughtered for the making of the film). 50 Shades not only earned profit but was allowed to be released because it's softcore porn at best, not the kind of hardcore controversial content we experienced back in the day, something like "SalÚ, or the 120 Days of Sodom" would have been banned everywhere immediately the moment news of its production hit the Internet. Hell, even the first Human Centipede wasn't that graphic in comparison.
And my point was less to do with the graphic nature of the films than with what they represented. Fifty Shades of Grey wasn't a problem because it was too graphic, it was because the underlying text had a toxic attitude towards sex and relationships that made its popularity a little concerning. Conversely, Cannibal Holocaust's attempts at adding a subtext that criticises so-called civilised white people ends up being obscured by its more graphic moments.

I feel like there was a time when such exploitation films were more prevalent and widespread than during the sensitive era we have today. There's merit to Rodent's point because there have been news of movies having their content changed because of controversial subjects that are deemed too, god forbid, offensive. Robert Downey Jr. was asked a very good question by Joe Rogan on his podcast: could he pull off the blackface character from Tropic Thunder today? The answer is most likely a no.
Yeah, well, there used to be a time when polio was more prevalent and widespread too. Sometimes it's worth questioning how much an offensive thing is really worth defending in the first place rather than seeing it as a conflict between being pro-sensitive and being pro-offensive.



Yeah, well, there used to be a time when polio was more prevalent and widespread too. Sometimes it's worth questioning how much an offensive thing is really worth defending in the first place rather than seeing it as a conflict between being pro-sensitive and being pro-offensive.
I mean, you're the one triggered about Rodent's point being non-existent. I was merely answering.



Welcome to the human race...
There are other words in the English language than "triggered", you know.