ThereвЂ™s a ton of prescient satire embedded in GaleвЂ™s screenplay. Part IIвЂ™s comedy is both broader and sharper - and often dark in surprising ways.

And not just the вЂњconfused man in the wrong time periodвЂќ comedy from the first film - though we do get a lot of that with MartyвЂ™s futuristic hijinks. But Part II very consistently has comedy on its mind, perhaps even more so than science fiction. The first film expertly juggles lots of different tones, moving from fish-out-of-water hijinks to pulse-pounding set pieces to heartwarming reconciliations and redemptions with ease. Plus, it makes the aforementioned dark stuff pop even harder. And in stark contrast to many of the YA near-future dystopian narratives weвЂ™re inundated with, this sequence bounces with fun-seeking and achieving energy, even when some bullies are introduced. Zemeckis and company remind us that teenagers, no matter the speculative era they exist in, crave and seek fun. One highly memorable chunk of the film comes from Marty investigating downtown in broad daylight, with eye-poppingly saturated colors and lewks filling the frame. This is not to say that Back to the Future Part IIвЂ™s futurescape is overbearingly grim. Mad props to DP Dean Cundey and production designer Rick Carter for leaning into this space and crushing it. Much of the filmвЂ™s futuristic look, especially in its night scenes, feel atypically grimy. We fulfill the first filmвЂ™s cliffhanger promise of flying cars right out of the gate, and it is an instantly enthralling leap into the futuristic frontier for the filmmakers. ItвЂ™s dark and shadowy, with pops of green sticking out in an ominously cloudy grayish purple. That workвЂ™s вЂњ1955 AmericaвЂќ is photographed in bright, even flat lighting, presenting that era both sincerely and satirically as being вЂњwholesome.вЂќ But our first image of 2015 feels more like Blade Runner than Leave It to Beaver. The very first image we see after the cold open and title sequence (ooh, that Alan Silvestri score still slaps) is shocking to those familiar with the world of the first film. Why all the hoops to jump through, Double Bobby? (The nickname IвЂ™ve given Zemeckis and Gale, which I have totally earned the right to give) Why not just set a science fiction story in the dang future and have fun with the speculative fiction of it all? In Part II, they certainly got to, with delightful results. But it also renders the film less as a pure sci-fi piece and more of a 1950s period piece with sci-fi window dressing. Yes, I know the first filmвЂ™s usage of the title cleverly frames вЂњthe presentвЂќ as вЂњthe futureвЂќ they need to get вЂњback toвЂќ having been stuck in 1955. If you give me a title like Back to the Future, I expect to see the future. But if youвЂ™ll allow me the time, I would love to make my case as to why Back to the Future Part II is a better watch than the OG Back to the Future.ДЄ simple distinction. IвЂ™m as wrong as DocвЂ™s naysayers, IвЂ™m as dumb as Future Biff, I should make like a tree and get out of here. And this milestone gives me the confidence to say something out loud IвЂ™ve only privately thought among my film fan friends: I think Part II just might be better than Part I. In this year of our Lord 2019, itвЂ™s celebrating its 30th anniversary. And boy am I glad he did.Д«ack to the Future Part II was released in theatres in 1989. Fox and Christopher Lloyd, he was convinced to follow the car once it flies into the air. Zemeckis initially wanted its story to end on his cliffhanger forever - until, buoyed by returning stars Michael J. The classic blockbuster, from director Robert Zemeckis and screenwriter Bob Gale, changed the game in 1985. вЂњWhere weвЂ™re going, we donвЂ™t need roads.вЂќ With this deliciously simple, tantalizing line of crisp screenwriting - followed soon thereafter by the dope visual effect of a damn flying car - objective masterpiece Back to the Future ends with a bang.

Back to the future part iii underrated