Review of Back to the Future Part III (1990) by Cameron J — 30 Jun 2015

I was really hoping that Marty McFly and Doc Brown would have to restort to using a horse as the time machine vehicle. Ah, it would never work anyways, because, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it travel through time. Man, I just got this insane image of a horse going through that fiery time warp and coming out the other end a chared skeleton. Ha-ha, I am sadistic, but hey, if Michael Cimino could just barely get away with actually blowing up a horse, just for the footage for "Heaven's Gate", then I'm sure we'll be alright if we use horses to test time travel; yeah, I'm sure PETA wouldn't get upset about that at all. Look PETA, unless you're going to reveal another shocking conspiracy involving a successful university lab and monkey brain damage, I suggest that y'all do what we've been asking you to for years: Just shut up, but keep the "I'd rather go naked" photoshoot campaign going. Wow, that was a long way to simply say that, sadly, they don't use a horse for time travel in this film. Of course, that's not the only disappointing thing in this film, for although it is good and certainly better than "Part II", it doesn't quite reach the level of its predecessor for quite a few reasons.

This series has always had a history of getting a bit annoying and noisy here and there, and sure enough, while it's not as unrelentingly noisy as "Part II", there are obnoxious spots, yet more than that, there are moments that are a little too quiet. Now, things are rarely, if ever quiet to the point of being rather dull, but those moments are as dry as the dessert ground our heroes walk upon. Of course, it's doesn't matter if things get too noisy or too quiet, because sound is all but far and away the least of this film's problems. What really lands a heavy blow to this film is... um, well, not much, actually. There's really very little that's distinctively wrong out of this film outside of some spots in storytelling and a few moments of more bad overacting by Thomas F. Wilson, who is still rightfully much less used in this film. Really, much like "Part I", what makes this film so lacking, even with its limited missteps, is the fact that there's simply not much to it, and with this film, there's even less. There's not much less for this film to slip up on, nor truly knock you out with, yet what places this film above workmanlike and renders it a thoroughly rewarding conclusion to the classic saga is what it does deliver on, because if Robert Zemeckis hasn't let us down before, he's certainly not going to start at the end.

Zemeckis wastes no time in telling us that he's got a few fine tricks left in his sleeve by giving us a hook that's not only engaging, yet so carefully constructed that it actually bypasses such a common misstep in direct sequels, including the second installment of this very series: Limited development. Sure, maybe the development segment runs a little too long after a while, but I'd rather have too much than not enough, because where "Part II" threw story development together and barely glossed over character development, this film is slow, steady and organic in its comfortable rebuilding of investment within these characters without having to overemphasize a recap of the events in the preceding films. You fall right back into this world with no convolutions or complications, and as the film continues, Zemeckis does what he's always done so well: deliver on resonance to make should-be satisfying, often climactic moments satisfying go above and beyond the call of duty. He doesn't deliver quite as well with the substance within this film as he did with the first installment, but Zemeckis keeps things, more often than not, tight and satisfying, which isn't to say that he doesn't also deliver on style, as well as substance. Zemeckis is still bringing on the visual dazzle and also puts a bit more emphasis on the cinematography, which still isn't as stellar and lively as it got to be in some of Zemeckis' later works, but has enough subtle life in it to catch your eye, as well as compliment the charming grace of the film, because although this screenplay still would have been better if it had Zemeckis right there with Bob Gale behind the paper, Gale all but makes up for his messy work with the screenplay for "Part II" with plenty of that unexpected subtlety that made the first film so refreshing. What I dug about the first film was how it was cleverly subtle with scenarios that could have been riddled with obnoxiously over the top, often fish-out-of-water-based humor, and here, we're looking at plenty of potential off-the-walls jokes dealing with confronting distant relatives from the past or simply being lost in an unknown world that are delivered in a fashion that's pulled-back and believable, yet still effective. This film isn't quite as amusing or colorful as the first installment, but there are plenty of chuckle-worthy charmers of jokes, delivered pretty sharply by our leads, Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, both of whom are delivering on the electric charm and chemistry - not just with each other, but every other member of the cast - that more than saved "Part II" and, in here, carries this film and helps in making it so effective, whether when it's being pretty funny, or heartwarmingly romantic, or just plain emotionally satisfying.

In conclusion, the final installment of the saga hits its occasional low points - whether they be noisy ones, overly quiet ones or simply spotty ones -, but is most of all kept from being as good as its original, let alone a real knockout by its being simply too simple, yet with plenty of visual dazzle that breaks up satisfying high points in storytelling by the great Robert Zemeckis, as well as clever writing and electrically charismatic lead performances by Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, "Back to the Future Part III" transcends its potential underwhelmingness and stands as a generally entertaining and satisfying capper to the classic trilogy.

3/5 - Good.