The first film is perfect. The two sequels are very fun and not at all “bad”–they’re just not instant classics like the first.
I saw all three at the movies (ages 7, 11 and 12) and I think the third film is the one I enjoy the least. The second is very much unlike the first, but that’s why I enjoy it, and I personally think it has the greatest potential for enjoying multiple times.
Don’t they say something in the commentary about how it was funny that this weird-looking dude went on to become “Flea”? In other words, I don’t think he was well-known to the public when he did BTTF II.
And P.S. I love all three movies.
2 was blah, but I actually liked 3.
Part 2 was great. Part 3 was boring as fuck.
I actually think this is plausible, as far as it goes:Biff, by that point, in that timeline, was accustomed to getting his own way all the time, to being, basically, above the law of chance (due to the Almanac) and, then, above the law, period, due to all his money and influence. I think it’s entirely likely that would go to his head and turn him from a run-of-the-mill date-rapist monster into a bloated, corrupt, Evil Elvis type.
I prefer the second because I just happen to like the vision of the future, because it’s so of its era. The excursions into the past have the real past to compete with, and the 1980s stuff is simply a 1980s/early 1990s film set in the 1980s, but for the 2015 stuff the writers let their imaginations run a bit and it shows.
The RHCP had been around since 1983. They were certainly well-known enough that I knew who Flea was when I first saw Part 2 back in 1989. And I’m not even a big Chili Peppers fan. I think they were probably just joking around.
They are alright for sequels but except for “Bride of Frankenstein” and “The Empire Strikes Back”, sequels rarely match the original (add the even number “Star Treks”). But there are worse popcorn movies, if you can stand watching the evil anti-Elvis, Michael J Fox.
I was only 11 when Part 2 came out and I knew who Flea was, too. I always thought it was funny that they cast Flea in a movie.
Seeing all 3 BTTF movies in close proximity recently, I’ll say that BTTF 2 is very well done- to the point of seeming very much like the first half of a 4 hour movie, instead of the second story of a 3 stand-alone story trilogy.
That’s why people were so irritated back in the day- with sequels coming out several years apart, it seemed like a real tease with no resolution. There was a decent break between 1 and 2, but almost none between 2 and 3 except for the time between the movie releases.
(had the internet been around then, the word that they’d filmed both simultaneously would have got around and people might not have been so aggravated)
I could be misremembering, or it’s certainly possible they were just kidding around. I believe it’s the same commentary where Zemeckis even further propagates the hoverboard rumor by saying something like “I know a lot of people were upset that hoverboards never came out, but trust me, they’re coming, they’re coming”. 
I seem to recall that in the theatre after BTTF 2 they showed the trailer for 3, though I may be misremembering.
No internet, but there were newspapers and magazines. I knew they had filmed both sequels simultaneously, and when Part 2 ended, I knew that Part 3 would come out within about six months. And I’m not the first person to find things out by any means. By the time I find out something, everybody else has usually known about it.
I’m sure I remember hearing on some Entertainment Tonight-type show that they were filming both 2 and 3 at the same time, because it made for an especially long, grueling shoot.
Before these boards, I’d never heard of two being the weakest. I would say three is just because it seemed like the whole thing was, “Let’s take the franchise and put it in the Old West, yeehah!” The second one was clever–it played with what had been set up in the first one. And even though it does have to be seen with the first one to make the most sense, it has its own plot. It’s not just borrowing from the set up of the first.
I dunno. I remember seeing it in the theatre knowing that BTTF 3 was coming out in just a few months, so word must have gotten around. Plus, at the very end of the second movie there were around two minutes of previews for the third, which could be done because it had already finished filming. So short of inventing Facebook and creating a BTTF page, I’m not sure what they could have done to better get the word out.
I hate saying any of them is the weakest because all three movies are great. I think I prefer 3 to 2 because I like Mary Steenbergen; but 2 is good by itself – especially the scenes in 1955 where Marty is observing the events of the first movie.
Funny, I’ve always liked II the best, possibly because it was more concerned with the consequences of time travel than I or III. The interaction with the events of the first movie was clever; I always like when a series of events is replayed from a different POV, revealing hidden knowledge or meaning.
This is how I felt as a kid, and it’s how I feel now too. I was fascinated with time travel, and so the greater focus on that in 2 was much more interesting to me than the relationship stuff. Quite frankly, as a young kid, the relationship stuff didn’t even really make sense.
These days, I’m particularly fond of the ridiculous 2015 future particularly because, as someone else mentioned, it’s very deliberately an 80s version of the future, where so many other futuristic visions have a 50s sort of feel. I’m also very fond of the interactions with the happenings of the first film.
As for the third, while it was a fun film, I felt like it didn’t really fit as well with the other ones because it had so little interaction with time travel. The impact of changes in the old west weren’t able to have a direct consequence on their lives in the way that the changes in 1955 were. I think it did a good job of rounding out the series, particular with adding depth to Doc Brown’s character.
Either way, I just don’t see how anyone could say they were bad films. I can understand not liking them as much as the first, but they’re still great films, and they do fit together well into one larger story.
I loved all three films. And not just because I was a kid. I still enjoy them. Part two had a lot of great time travel shenanigans, interacting with scenes from the first movie. And the future stuff was also a lot of fun. Who didn’t love the hoverboard? The third one is more of a love note to Doc Brown, but it goes back to the origins of the clock tower so it’s a sweet end cap to the series.
A great thing about both sequels is the way they revisit some of the things from the first film, but with a twist, like hoverboard instead of skate board, and the manure bit, and the aliases Marty picks.
The only things I didn’t like were the sudden appearance of Marty’s whole arc about not wanting to be called chicken that came out of nowhere, and also the plotline regarding how Marty’s kids were going to be in trouble was a little weak.
I agree with 2-1-3. I think it does matter how old you were when they came out. I was right in the audience age wheelhouse for 2…also 1 and 3 but mostly 2. I agree that the “relationship stuff” from 1 was more boring than FREAKING HOVERBOARDS in 2 
I think the whole series is great, and even each film can stand on its own as a solid movie.