Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Critics and audiences didn't seem too happy with Back to the Future, Part II, the inventive, perhaps too clever sequel. Director Zemeckis and cast bent over backwards to add layers of time-travel complication, and while it surely exercises the brain it isn't necessarily funny in the same way that its predecessor was. It's well worth a visit, though, just to appreciate the imagination that went into it, particularly in a finale that has Marty watching his own actions from the first film. --Tom Keogh
Shot back-to-back with the second chapter in the trilogy, Back to the Future, Part III is less hectic than that film and has the same sweet spirit of the first, albeit in a whole new setting. This time, Marty ends up in the Old West of 1885, trying to prevent the death of mad scientist Christopher Lloyd at the hands of gunman Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson, who had a recurring role as the bully Biff). Director Zemeckis successfully blends exciting special effects with the traditions of a Western and comes up with something original and fun. --Tom Keogh
The most controversial part of the video concerns the framing of the image for widescreen viewing. When Universal went back to the full-frame, open-matte negatives to do the DVDs, they made some changes, intentional or not, from the laser disc framing. Then they issued an official press release as follows: "Universal Studios Home Video is aware of a minor technical framing issue on the 'Back to the Future Trilogy' widescreen DVDs. The framing appears differently from the laserdisc releases for approximately two minutes during 'Back to the Future II' and four minutes during 'Back to the Future III.' The framing difference is unnoticeable to widescreen DVD viewers and does not detract from or interrupt the viewing experience. Consumers with further questions can call (888) 703-0010."
The studio is probably right in saying that the differences are unnoticeable (whether they meant "widescreen" or "full screen" or whatever), because unless a viewer has a photographic memory of the theatrical versions or has the laser discs on hand for direct comparison, there is little to notice. It's doubtful that anyone but the most meticulous "Back to the Future" partisan need worry about any possible framing problems.
|