Why is Back to the Future 3 so underrated?

As far as classic trilogies go, Back to the Future has to rank at the top of the pantheon. Yet, it’s always felt as if their third film, Back to the Future: Part III, which features Michael J. Fox’s Marty McFly going back in time to rescue Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) from the old west, always went a little underappreciated by fans. Why?

Truth be told, as good as the two sequels are, neither quite manages to outshine the 1985 original, which ranks as perhaps the most impeccably crafted blockbuster of all time. For his follow-ups, Robert Zemeckis was ahead of his time in that he shot both movies back to back as one giant film, allowing him to release them six months apart, at Christmas of 1989 and the Summer of 1990. In fact, Back to the Future: Part II ended with a trailer for the third film.

Yet, at the time many felt this tactic backfired, as the third film underwhelmed at the box office. Many pinned the blame on the fact that it was a Western, which was a genre that was considered past its prime in the 80s. The second film had all kinds of wacky, futuristic tech in it, whereas the third film was more old-fashioned.

Yet, as time went by – something interesting started to happen. Fans of the trilogy started to reevaluate the third film, which was less reliant on footage from the original as the second film, and told a very human story more in line with the original. Nowadays, it’s rightly celebrated for its emphasis on Doc Brown, and the love story it tells between him and Mary Steenburgen’s Clara.

In this episode of Revisited, we take a deep dive into why this third film in the trilogy has stood the test of time a lot better than many other films of its era and why it’s probably the second-best movie of the trilogy (by a landslide).

Do you think Back to the Future Part III is better than Part II? Let us know in the comments.