MovieChat Forums > Back to the Future Part II (1989) Discussion > Why did audiences/critics find this movi...

Why did audiences/critics find this movie so “dark” and “confusing”?


Apparently critics and audiences didn’t like this in 1989 because the movie was too “dark” and “confusing”? Seriously? Doc Brown literally explains the plot in layman’s term and “dark”? The movie is still pretty lighthearted outside of the Biff alternate 1985 (which was done in a pretty over the top way). Hell the 2015 scene is flat out campy. Crazy

reply


BTTF was incredibly optimistic and big-hearted compared to this, I think was the issue

reply

This. Parts of the movie were very tonally different than the previous one. Also critics and audiences are dumb.

reply

I think its main problem is the tonal inconsistency.

It bounces from OTT campy/goofball comedy, to dark and serious Sci-Fi (the latter of which seems to take itself too seriously and at times, feels pretentious), to rehashing too much of the first movie’s third act - as if it doesn’t know what it wants to be.

At least the other two movies seemed more focused.

reply

I liked that part about it, the back and forth kept it from feeling too samey. Don't think there's anything pretentious about it

reply

Because they’re confused and dumb.

BTTF II is incredible, and one of the best sequels ever made. Even though it’s not quite as amazing as the first film, they’re both 10/10 masterpieces (with III a lesser but still healthy 7/10)

The future world stuff is just awesome, and the postmodern return to the first film is genius, as is the ‘we’ve had this letter for 70 years’ ending.

reply

Confused and dumb? Yeah sorry, sounds more like a problem with the movie itself than the audience.

Seriously, I counted MANY plot holes and narrative inconsistencies:

1). The scene where Doc tells Marty that travelling into the future from the altered present to stop Biff stealing the time machine would be impossible, even though previously Biff was able to return to the seemingly unaltered future after completing his mission. Why???

2). The movies' opening negates one of the biggest points established in the first movie, as travelling into the future to prevent things that haven't happened yet is both unnecessary (especially as they could be prevented simply by writing a note) and risky, and the characters already know the risks and dangers of such interference, having literally JUST experienced them.
Now, I know that's how the first movie ended, but it was originally intended as a throwaway gag as no sequel was planned, but apparently, they underestimated how much demand there would be for one. Bob Gale himself said that they would've ended the original film differently had a sequel been intended from the get-go.

3). The aspect where the characters are in a constant rush, which is moot at best considering that they have a fully functioning time machine with no technical problems.
It made perfect sense to rush in the first and third movies because with the time machine damaged, threats to their existence and getting back to the present at stake, they were literally in a race against time.

And those are just a handful of examples…


Now, you could argue that I’m merely overthinking and taking it all too seriously. But the fact is, much of the movie IS taking itself quite seriously with the intention of being thought-provoking and at times does come off as pretentious – which brings me to the next point regarding tonal inconsistency:

The over-the-top and campy (too campy for my liking) first act set in the future doesn't fit well with the dark and super-serious approach the rest of the film has – whereas the original film and the 3rd balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary (climactic sequences near the end etc.).

On a similar note, while it might seem needlessly nit-picky to point out how inaccurate this version of the near future (2015) is, this outdated factor is a major contrast to the other two movies’ sense of timelessness.


With all that said, it's no wonder this sequel received such a polarised response among critics and fans during its' initial release.

Reception has improved overtime, yes, though I feel that's mainly due to the growth in classic status the original 1985 movie received and becoming part of a trilogy that's just as iconic overall as said movie.


reply

Absurd nit-picks.

If you’re going to be that anal then you’d need to tear into the first film - like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??

And there was plenty of darkness in BTTF - Marty’s siblings disappearing limb-by-limb in the photo was creepy af, as was his hand starting to vanish while he was playing guitar.

And that’s before we address the mother-son incest and Marty’s plan to sexually molest his mother…

Any ‘darkness’ in BTTF II pales compared to that shit. No, those first two films are perfect, I wouldn’t change a frame. It’s the third film that falls short by lacking much of the fun and invention of I and II, replacing it with a misjudged ‘Doc falls in love’ plotline.

reply

Absurd nit-picks.


Really? I don't think there's anything 'absurd' about my observations. But if you want to address and properly refute anything I've brought up, you're welcome to...

If you’re going to be that anal then you’d need to tear into the first film - like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??


I'm familiar with this common observation, and I think it raises some interesting questions. But is it really a plot hole?

Who knows? Maybe this was something George and Lorraine talked about in an offscreen conversation - that their son bared a lot of resemblance to someone they once knew (and likely named him after), but probably dismissed it as a mere coincidence.

And there was plenty of darkness in BTTF - Marty’s siblings disappearing limb-by-limb in the photo was creepy af, as was his hand starting to vanish while he was playing guitar.


Whoever said that the first movie didn't have it's dark moments? All I said is that it balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary.

And if you think my gripe with the sequel is purely it's "dark" aspect, then you clearly have not read my reply correctly.

It’s the third film that falls short by lacking much of the fun and invention of I and II, replacing it with a misjudged ‘Doc falls in love’ plotline.


So where exactly do you think the 3rd movie was lacking such things? Being stuck in the late 19th Century posed new and dangerous challenges to overcome, especially with the limited and outdated technology they needed to utilise to achieve their goals in a race against time.

And I for one liked the romantic subplot with Doc and Clara, as it added layers to his character and showed that he's more than just an eccentric scientist. It also gave him a dilemma to overcome - to do what his mind or his heart says.

In the second movie he's mostly just a flanderized exposition machine.


reply

Really? I don't think there's anything 'absurd' about my observations. But if you want to address and properly refute anything I've brought up, you're welcome to...

Thanks, I did that in the post you just replied to 🤷🏻‍♂️



I'm familiar with this common observation, and I think it raises some interesting questions. But is it really a plot hole?

Who knows? Maybe this was something George and Lorraine talked about in an offscreen conversation - that their son bared a lot of resemblance to someone they once knew (and likely named him after), but probably dismissed it as a mere coincidence.

Utterly absurd defence of what you know is a gaping plot hole in the first film. I don’t have a problem with the plot hole because BTTF films are playful action comedies. The problem is that you’re giving a pass to the plot holes in BTTF and condemning Part II for the same crime. Inconsistency. Hypocrisy.



Whoever said that the first movie didn't have it's dark moments? All I said is that it balanced the light drama and comedy nicely and was serious where necessary.

And if you think my gripe with the sequel is purely its "dark" aspect, then you clearly have not read my reply correctly.

I understood fully, it’s just that you’re wrong in criticising Part II for its light and dark balance while giving BTTF a pass - the extremes of light and dark in II are clearly less extreme than BTTF’s blend of sweet romantic comedy with mother-son incest, incestuous sexual molestation, and the horror of watching your limbs slowly evaporate from existence. Again, inconsistency = criticism invalidated.


BTTF III is alright. It’s just that the Wild West is meh compared to the future, dark present and awesome, inventive postmodern return to the first film’s 1955 adventure. Doc Brown is better as a loner genius, his love story is meh. The action scene with the train is cool though. It’s a 7/10 film.

reply

Utterly absurd defence of what you know is a gaping plot hole in the first film.


Not absurd at all. You know there's a difference between a plot point that directly contradicts another (i.e. a plot hole) and something simply isn't elaborately explained, right?

Seriously, this:
like why aren’t George and Lorraine gobsmacked that their son Marty looks and sounds identical to that amazing, mysterious guy who appeared to them in 1955 called ‘Marty’??

Cannot be compared to this:
The scene where Doc tells Marty that travelling into the future from the altered present to stop Biff stealing the time machine would be impossible, even though previously Biff was able to return to the seemingly unaltered future after completing his mission.




the extremes of light and dark in II are clearly less extreme than BTTF’s blend of sweet romantic comedy with mother-son incest, incestuous sexual molestation


No, they are not. Part II bounces from a campy parody-esque first act to hyper-dark and largely charmless second-third act that takes itself too seriously, as if it doesn't know what it really wants to be. And it's made worse with the obvious narrative inconsistencies (already mentioned).

And I'm sorry, but you lost me when you argued that Part I included mother-son incest. Young and naïve Lorraine was merely attracted to Marty whom she didn't know was her future son, which not only made him uncomfortable but also added a barrier to her falling for George and therefore putting his existence at steak.


reply

I don't think the movie was meant to be taken as seriously as you think. It's a fun summer blockbuster, not a 3 hour long Martin Scorsese movie

reply

I saw this in the theater and everyone seemed to enjoy it, though there was a collective groan at the ending. Maybe that's what put people off? I really liked it. Second acts are typically dark.

reply