Off the Cuff Reviews Back to the Future Part II (1989)

It's the eternal debate: which film of the trilogy is the best? I tend to go back and forth between the first and the second, but I'm only here to be objective, not subjective. In that spirit, Back to the Future Part II (1989) is still an incredibly fun movie, and a worthy successor to the original, but can it match up to what came before it? Starring Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly, Marty McFly Jr. and Marlene McFly, Christopher Lloyd as Doctor Emmet 'Doc' Brown, Lea Thompson as Lorraine Baines-McFly, Elizabeth Shue as Jennifer Parker and Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen and Griff Tannen.

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

The easy thing to note about this movie is that, while very similar to the original (in that various sequences and exchanges are almost lifted one-for-one in a case of history repeating itself which I find very on-brand), it is quite different in a number of ways. The most noticeable of which is the variety in each act of the movie. The film jumps around a bit, travelling to three different time zones and timelines, which is the main fact that people choose to cite as to why this movie is/isn't the best of the trilogy. On one hand, there is more variety, and the fact that the movie still flows logically and is easy to follow despite the variety is impressive. On the other hand, it also means there's less time devoted to each idea, and the focus is somewhat lost. I tend to lean more towards the former, but it is a legitimate concern a lot of people have. Anyway, because the film is so segmented, I have to do what I've often done for films like this and analyse this act by act.

Elizabeth Shue as Jennifer

The first act is the section that takes place in 'the future' and, look, regardless of what they did or didn't predict about 2015 doesn't matter; loads of the best sci-fi stories got things wrong about what we now call 'the past'. What matters is the world the film presents is an interesting one, and there are a lot of cool ideas presented here. Of course, we have the iconic hoverboard and quick-heating pizza and self-tying laces, and they do a great job presenting us with a fun depiction of the future. It's also here we get introduced to the concept of Marty's 'No one calls me chicken' Achilles's Heel, and while it's odd he never exhibited this symptom in the past, having just been invented for this story, I do like it. One of the things I mentioned about the first movie is that Marty doesn't grow as a person or learn any lessons, so this gives him a vessel for self-growth. The arc, of course, doesn't get resolved until the next movie, and it's here I'll mention that this movie and its sequel are some of the best examples of films being filmed concurrently ever. There are a lot of easter eggs to events of the 3rd movie, like introducing Mad Dog Tannen before the Wild West story is even close to being established.

Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly Jr.

This leads me to the second act: the alternate timeline 1985. This act goes a long way towards setting up Biff as a truly despicable person and a definite villain (this version of Biff being based somewhat on Donald Trump, but that's neither here nor there). Thomas F. Wilson in general gets a lot of different things to do here: he's hyperactive Griff, old man Biff, teenage Biff and bigwig tycoon Biff, and he plays them all wonderfully and with their own style but also keeping all the different versions of Biff realistically the same person. The alternate version of Hill Valley is delightfully dark, and it's a great way of raising the stakes from the original, making it a more pressing issue that needs fixing by our heroes. The reveal of George McFly's fate in particular is very well-handled, and Marty's chat with Biff is incredibly tense. The whole thing probably wouldn't work as well if you don't have Doc there explaining how the whole thing works with the chalkboard, which is very welcome.

Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen

Which leads to the best part of the movie: the 1955 revisit. I just love how they manage to weave their quest for the Almanac throughout the events of the original film and have it all, not only make sense, but also not ruin the original. It's also just a lot of fun seeing these events from a different perspective, especially going back and watching the original with these in mind. Knowing that throughout Marty's performance on the stage, there was a second Marty climbing through the rafters isn't something that necessarily changes anything, but it's fun for us nerds to think about. Talking of the Almanac, I love how it's used as the MacGuffin to get this story going; there's a reason it's become synonymous with time travel paradoxes. It's not only something that's easy to comprehend, but is also a legitimate question that comes up with time travel hypotheticals, and with a story that could easily get convoluted when you're travelling to different times, a simple goal is very effective. Throughout this entire affair, the comedy lands and the music is still exquisite and the acting is great. At the end of the day, rather anti-climactically, it really just comes down to personal preference which of the movies you prefer, as, of the first two at least, there's so much good to enjoy.

Christopher Lloyd as Doc Browns

Back to the Future Part II (1989) is an extremely worthy successor to the classic original, and while subjectively I do prefer watching this to the original, I do have to acknowledge the segmented nature of the story can put people off. It's still amazing, thought. I'll get around to the 3rd one soon, I'm sure. 9.5/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Frozen (2013)

Well, well, well. I would eventually get around to this one, wouldn't I. Some people declare it one of the greatest Disney animated, or just animated, films of all time. Other people, in a Scrooge-ish act of defiance to the movie's immense popularity, declare it a load of steaming garbage. I, however, identify that 'overrated' doesn't necessarily mean 'bad', as Frozen (2013) remains a fairly good movie. It got a little out of hand, sure, and it's far from great, but it's a fun enough time, especially for the children it's marketed at. Starring Kristen Bell as Anna, Idina Menzel as Elsa, Jonathan Groff as Kristoff, Josh Gad as Olaf and Santino Fontana as Hans.

Frozen (2013)

First of all, this is a very good looking film. Not only is there a lot of detail in the background and environments, but Good God, I just feel cold while watching this. It's not just in the night, but also the sunny winter day; this movie just nails the feeling of winter, despite me never seeing the snow or having the faintest idea what a sunny winter day would actually look like. It's an evocative landscape, and it's very effective. The presentation in general is really great, as you'd come to expect from Disney, of course, but it's still worth mentioning, since there are a lot of films that still can't get it right. The cinematography is on point; you really get a sense of the scope of the big sloping mountains surrounding Arendelle. Whenever Elsa uses her ice powers it all looks quite impressive, and the background music is great. Whenever the movie goes back to the motif of 'na-na-na-hey-ya' it's awesome, and I can't explain why. It just sounds good, okay.

Idina Menzel as Elsa and Kristen Bell as Anna

Talking about the music, I should probably address the original music used in the movie, as it is one of the most contentious topics to come up whenever this movie is discussed. I don't have a problem with the film's soundtrack overall, a lot of it really holds up. The main problem I have with the original songs is the pacing of the whole thing. The first half an hour or so contains half of the movie's songs, all of which are really catchy and memorable. You've got the opening chant about ice being strong and all that s***, First Time in Forever, Love is An Open Door... yes, even Let It Go. There's a reason that song specifically took the world by storm in early 2014, it just is the best song in that movie. The problem is that after that song, there are only two left in the movie: one about 20 minutes later with the fun song about the snowman who was only recently created yet somehow knows the concept of summer but not that it'll kill him, and the song another 20 minutes later about the trolls singing a song about love that goes against the very point the movie is trying to make about falling in love too quickly, which is, to nobody's surprise, the worst song in the movie. The opening act is so saturated with music and the last two acts are so sparse; it's jarring. There is that short section with Kristoff singing to his reindeer, but that hardly counts. It is a problem though, as with song after song so quickly it gets tiring, and then when the odd song shows up in the last two thirds, you're like 'Oh, yeah, this is a musical, right'. Spreading them out a little more would have made the movie flow a lot better.

Josh Gad as Olaf

On the topic of Let It Go, there is one thing I dislike about that song specifically, and it's nothing to do with the song itself. It's that you can clearly tell they wrote that song, then rewrote the rest of the movie around it. Because, be honest, the plot of Frozen really doesn't make sense. Everyone loves to talk about the elements of the plot that feel rushed, like how unused the rock trolls are and how out of place they feel in this world, or the fact that despite being told not to make Elsa fear her powers, what the parents decide to do is exactly that, or how the reveal of Hans as a surprise villain comes out of f***ing nowhere and completely derails the final act, taking all of the focus away from people being afraid of Elsa so everyone just accepts her out of f***ing nowhere as a result... I'm sorry, but as a writer, I can't not notice how messy this script is. A lot of the dialogue is fine, and it gets a lot of genuine laughs, but the story is all over the place. Talking about Hans specifically, you can use him as a cautionary tale about falling in love too quickly as much as you want, that's fine, and a good message to contradict outdated stories from a lot of the older Disney films. But, for the love of all that's holy, don't, don't, DON'T include a shot of Hans acting super nice to himself while Anna can't see it. At that point, he's acting out of character specifically to fool the audience, which turns his character into just that: a plot device to fool the audience. A well-written surprise villain is one that seems like a big shock on a first-watch, but the signs were all there in a second. This feels like the writers just decided he'd be a villain when they got to that point, but didn't go back and tweak the opening two acts to have it make sense once they got there.

Santino Fontana as Hans

The voice cast do a really good job here as well, mainly Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel. Bell plays this kind of role really well; she reminds me of a more wholesome Eleanor Shellstrop, which is surprising considering she got this role long before The Good Place even began. I suppose this was just a roundabout way of saying you should watch The Good Place if you're not already. Regardless, Kristen Bell brings a very likeable quality to Anna, who might have easily been an annoying character otherwise. Idina Menzel gives a similar quality to Elsa, to the point where even though the story could lead towards her becoming a villainous character (more in line with the original Snow Queen fairytale), you don't want to see her go that way since she's so likeable. Despite this being the exact opposite point the rock trolls make, you really get the sense that Elsa is truly frightened over her abilities. Bell and Menzel also have great chemistry with each other, making the sisterly love angle which is integral to the film's climax all the more earned. The rest of the cast do a fine job, and they all do the best they can, but I feel like there are a lot of different people that could have done an equally good job. What I'm trying to say is that those characters don't feel all that unique compared to other Disney animated characters. You've got the comedic relief in Gad's Olaf, the surprise villain in Fontana's Hans and the goofy love interest in Groff's Kristoff. Of the three, Kristoff feels the most defined, though that's really only because the film doesn't lean into the love angle between the two as much as other movies might have, and I also love his friendship with Sven. At some point, this movie sort of feels like your typical post-Renaissance Disney film, to the point where I'm shocked that a lot of people describe this as the movie that reinvented the Disney formula.

Sven and Jonathan Groff as Kristoff

Frozen (2013) is just another Disney film, but that still amounts to a good watch at the end of the day. You'll just have to turn your brain off to enjoy it thoroughly. I do admit, I was more enthralled by it on my first viewing, and doesn't quite hold up on repeat watches. As for Frozen 2, I haven't seen that one yet, so I guess we'll see how that one turns out. 6.5/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000)

This is actually my first time reviewing a direct-to-DVD movie. I thought that might entail a slightly more lenient judging process, since there's obviously not going to be as big of a budget to put into it, especially for an animated film. Surprisingly, those issues didn't come up all too much, as Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000) ended up being a really enjoyable time, and the fact that it's help up better than a significant chunk of the big budget blockbusters I've looked over is very telling. Starring Will Friedle as Terry McGinnis / Batman, Kevin Conroy as Bruce Wayne, Mark Hamill as The Joker, Angie Harmon as Commissioner Barbara Gordon, Dean Stockwell as Tim Drake, Arleen Sorkin as Harley Quinn, Melissa Joan Hart as Dee Dee, Michael Rosenbaum as Ghoul, Don Patrick Harvey as Chucko, Henry Rollins as Bonk and Frank Welker as Woof and Ace.

Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000)

Like I mentioned in the prelude, there are a couple of issues this movie needs to work around right off the bat. The first, like I said, is that as a direct-to-DVD movie it doesn't have as big a budget as the films I'm used to watching for this page, and thus it naturally won't look as pretty or be animated as cleanly as some of the bigger budget animations. And, yeah, it's a little noticeable at times. I don't hold this against the movie for what it is, but there are moments, mainly in the wide shots, where the level of detail completely drops, particularly in the characters' faces. It can stand out a little too much in moments, but there's one thing that almost completely nullifies all those quibbles for me: this movie is stylistic as hell. Good God, they managed to work around the budget and ended up making a pretty gorgeous-looking film. The use of shadow in particular is incredibly impressive, and that's not just in specific moments; it's all throughout the movie. The mainly muted colour scheme never got in the way; it only helped to add to the atmosphere of the whole thing. You can tell that a lot of care went into making this thing look as cool as it could, and it really paid off.

Kevin Conroy as Bruce Wayne

The other issue this movie has to work around is the fact that it's springboarding off of a TV show that not everyone would have seen going into this, so they need to make sure they aren't alienating those audiences. It results in a couple of painful expositional scenes when discussing the backstories of certain characters, particularly Terry, but overall the film does a good job of letting you know what's going on in a way that flows with the story. That is, except for Terry himself. I mentioned the expositional dialogue towards Terry, and that's because the film doesn't do an amazing job of establishing his personality in the first half. He's basically presented as a younger Batman, but we don't learn all that much about Terry himself, at least, not enough for a main character. The movie gets around that by not making Terry the main focus. They tell a story that has a lot more to do with Bruce Wayne and the Joker, who are more recognisable characters for a general audience, which was a clever move. In that sense, it's not that important we learn a lot about Terry himself, and we do get enough that I like him well enough by the end, so there's that. He's also played by Will Friedle, who is one of my favourite comedic actors of all time, so that's a lot of points in Terry's favour.

Will Friedle as Batman

Talking of the voice cast, they all do a great job here. This is actually my first time getting an extensive look at one of Kevin Conroy's animated Batman roles, and it's easy to see why this guy became the definitive Batman for so many people. He just brings this gravitas to every line, especially for this interpretation of Bruce Wayne. I can definitely buy that this version of Wayne is this brooding mentor figure, and his chemistry with Friedle is on point. Friedle, to his credit, proves himself as an excellent Batman of his own right. I like the character of Terry, as I said, he feels like a middle-ground between a regular Batman and Spider-Man, though obviously leaning more towards the Batman side of things. He gets the intimidating side of Batman down while also bringing in a youthful element, like we get with Spider-Man, that really works juxtaposing with this older, more cynical Bruce Wayne. A lot of these side characters are also really cool. Before the movie ended I thought for sure Dee Dee was an established comic villain they'd brought over for the movie; they're design and skillset just seemed too well thought out to be these minor villains made up specifically for this movie. But, nope. Original creations. That really impressed me, and just solidified the amount of care and thought that must have gone into making this.

Melissa Joan Hart as Dee Dee

But, and we all knew this already, this is the Joker's movie. Not only is Mark Hamill predictably amazing in the role, but my God, they did not pull any punches. This Joker is legitimately creepy and menacing; I was horrified by a lot of what he was doing, to the point where a satellite laser honestly seemed like a bit of a weak end goal for his schemes. Look at the stuff he was doing earlier in the movie, especially with that tense and gripping flashback scene. That scene felt like the best part of the movie for me; it was the Joker at his most ruthless and Batman at his lowest low, and it really felt earned. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the entire thing, and they'd already basically told me how the scene was going to end before it started. It was depraved, it was despicable, it was truly evil; to go from that to your basic space laser did feel like a bit of a downgrade. Which isn't to say that the final fight wasn't great, it was, and I like how they integrated Terry and his unique character into it (that was actually the first time I really saw how unique he is as a character), but it just paled in comparison to the intensity of what had come before it.

Mark Hamill as the Joker

Nitpicks aside, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000) was a great time, and a must-watch for Batman fans, though maybe not as an introduction to the Batman mythos. I have my gripes, sure, but at the end of the day, this movie did its job: I'm genuinely interested to watch the Batman Beyond show. Well played, movie. Well played. 9/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Roman Holiday (1953)

As of the release of this post, this is the oldest movie I've reviewed. It might even be the oldest movie I've seen, animated Disney films notwithstanding. In the past, I've expressed how the more 'classic' movies like this don't tend to be for me; there are always one or two little things that seem outdated or just a little off by today's standards that I just can't look past. Imagine my surprise when Roman Holiday (1953) ended up being a really, really good time; it's probably up there with some of the better movies I've seen this year. I couldn't believe it either; there's something about this movie that just... works for me. Starring Gregory Peck as Joe Bradley, Audrey Hepburn as Princess Ann and Eddie Albert as Irving Radovich.

Roman Holiday (1953)

For as much as I've said there are certain things about these older movies I don't quite like that much, there's a lot about them that I love; these elements that add that extra layer of charm to the proceedings. The way the opening credits are basically the closing credits, with grand orchestra accompanying them. How they often play like a theatre piece, with not a lot of big set pieces or high budget effects. The black-and-white nature of this film in particular adds a lot to that, but what's the most impressive thing about this movie is perhaps how the rest of the movie doesn't really feel stuck in the 1950s. With a few tweaks, this movie could be made in basically any time period and it would likely have the same effect. There's not a lot here that feels dated or awkward by today's standards, if anything, though I'll touch on that a little later on. That being said, I'm glad this is a 50s movie, and it goes back to that word I mentioned earlier: charm. This is such a charming movie, it's just so likeable.

Audrey Hepburn as Princess Ann

The story itself is a fairly simple one, at least on the surface. Princess gets tired of her royal duties, has a day out in Rome with a man. That's the surface layer, and summing the plot up in such a matter-of-fact way really doesn't do the movie any favours. There's also the fact that the man is hiding the fact that he's a reporter and is using the opportunity to get a scoop with the Princess while pretending he doesn't know who she is because he owes a lot of people money and wants to go back to New York but at the same time they begin to fall in love but she knows she has duties and needs to go back to her life... there's a lot going on here. So much so that the money problems are almost tossed aside in the final act, which is a bit annoying since that was such a big part of his character and I would have liked some resolution. Not necessarily that all his money problems are solved, but even addressing it in the last few scenes would have been enough. That being said, it's used more to service the romance plot, which is very believable. Without going into details, it's a real romance, it feels incredibly natural. I can't stress enough, they know each other for a day, and there's no forced dialogue about how much they mean to each other, I don't think they even use the words 'I love you' at all. It's so intelligently written, significantly better than a lot of forced romances in a lot of other movies I've seen.

Hartley Power as Hennessy

In fact, I may not have given the writing enough credit; there's a reason this script won an Oscar. You may have noticed, when I was doing my spiel about the plot, both of the characters are hiding information from their partner, effectively or otherwise. Normally in a romantic comedy like this, the third act hinges in some way on this information being revealed and there's a big argument and a bunch of the last part of the movie is the two of them apart and they're moping around until eventually they go back to each other and it's so contrived and overplayed and I hate it every time. So knowing that the bulk of this movie runs on hidden information, I was just waiting for it, I was waiting for the reveal to come and the big argument and the moping and doping around and, in general, for a disappointing third act. And... nothing. It doesn't happen. They completely dodged the cliche when I was sitting here thinking this might have been the movie that invented it and I would have even more reason to hate it. So, when I tell you that the final scene of this movie is literal perfection, at least for a movie like this, understand just how big that is. It is absolutely perfect; I wouldn't change a single thing about it. This is what all romantic comedies should be. When they fall back into the well of overused cliches that pop up in every other romantic comedy and there's nothing of substance otherwise, they're torture. When they're clever, dodge the cliches and do something unique, they can be beauteous.

Gregory Peck as Joe

The acting across the board is excellent, to boot. Gregory Peck has maybe the quintessential black-and-white-movie voice, and his presence in general is powerful. He sort of plays the every-man here, and it works for what the movie's going for; going too over-the-top with a role like this would have killed it. He also nails the dry humour the movie likes to go for with his character. He also has excellent chemistry with Audrey Hepburn, and it's easy to see why she was such a sensation in decades past. She really brought this regal role down-to-earth, and she nailed about every aspect of the character. When she's hilariously drowsy, the wide-eyed fish-out-of-water or the respected princess, she's great in all parts. I also want to mention Eddie Albert as Irving. In a movie that wasn't particularly laugh-out-loud, a lot of his scenes really cracked me up, particularly when he's working off Peck. Their friendship is something that isn't really brought to the forefront in this story, but I really bought it. The scene with them geeking out over the pictures specifically was something that added a lot to that dynamic.

Eddie Albert as Irving

I'm just as surprised as anyone when I say that I loved Roman Holiday (1953). As someone who doesn't particularly care for older movies or romantic comedies, this was just amazing. It's such a feel-good movie, and I'm sure to be coming back to this again in the future. 9.5/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews The Aristocrats (2005)

Jesus Christ. I think I've gone out of my goddamn mind watching this. This is the first documentary I've ever reviewed for this page, and hoo boy, was this an interesting one to start out with. The Aristocrats (2005) is a ride, and that's really the best way I can summarise watching this film. It took me on a journey, and I know for a fact that I'm not the same man that I was before watching it, so I guess it did its job, but... holy f***.

The Aristocrats (2005)

This review is likely going to be a lot shorter than my previous reviews, since I can't really dissect the plot, or talk about the characters, or praise the acting, or gush over the effects or any of that garbage that you get with a regular movie. The entire movie is essentially 80 minutes of talking heads discussing and telling one joke. That's... that's really all this documentary is when you boil down to it. It's about 50 comedians all telling the same joke. For 80 minutes. Not even a clever joke. A stupid joke. A stupid, vulgar, repetitive joke told over and over again. For 80 minutes. So, for me to tell you that I recommend this documentary in spite of all that should give you an idea of how impactful this joke is.

Drew Carey

The joke is varied enough to sustain 80 minutes, which was surprising to me for so many reasons. For the most part, the set-up and the punchline were all the same, but it's the main bulk of the joke where the variation comes up. I've danced around the issue long enough, so basically the joke is a family variety act pitching the most vulgar, shocking, offensive live show you can imagine. The joke itself essentially becomes an improv exercise for the comedian telling it, and that's where the variety comes in. In the entire 80 minute documentary, even if the set-up and the punchline were completely identical, I never heard the same story twice, and it's a testament to the talent behind it, which I'll get back to in just a moment. My favourite versions of the joke told in the documentary were, of course, the ones that took it in a slightly different direction, either mixing up the set-up or adding an additional punchline.

George Carlin

Back to the talent, there are a lot of comedians in this documentary. I didn't know all of them, but I knew a lot of them, and that in and of itself is impressive, just to see the scope of the joke itself. Robin Williams, Chris Rock, Drew Carey, Hank Azaria, Carrie Fisher, Eric Idle, Billy Connolly, it really is this little inside joke for the comedy and entertainment industry; the legacy is clear. It starts out a little jarring, hearing these respected names like Paul Reiser and Bob Saget being so crass and vulgar, but I think that's where the appeal comes in. There's no pulling it back, or attempting not to cross a line, they can just let loose with whatever they want and the worse it is, the funnier it gets. The absolute highlight of the entire documentary is hearing Gilbert Gottfried's tame, at least by that point in the documentary, version of the joke he told at a live comedy roast a mere weeks after 9-11. I was in stitches, and the content wasn't even that funny by that point.

Gilbert Gottfried

Which is something I do need to mention. The documentary is 80 minutes and it is all about the one joke, like I mentioned before. So, if the joke doesn't grab you after the first 10 minutes or if you're just not a fan of crude humour in general, this documentary certainly isn't for you. In that sense, I do feel compelled to mark the movie down a little, especially because nothing really changes over the 80 minutes. Like I said, it is all the same throughout. I was hooked, but I don't think everyone will be. That said, I do like how the documentary is structured; it's about as well-structured as it could have been. They begin with about 5 minutes of comedians hyping up the joke, and the first telling of it leaves you saying, 'Huh? This is the legendary joke?' Then they explain why the joke is passed around and after the second telling you get it. You understand, and after that point, the documentary devolves into people telling their version of the joke intercut with those same people explaining its legacy. It sounds like a boring concept and, really, it is, but I do recommend it, like I said.

Penn & Teller

If you can get past the second telling of the joke with a smile on your face, The Aristocrats (2005) will be an entertaining documentary for you. If not, don't bother yourself with it; it's not going to get better for you. Personally, I had a blast. I'd be lying if I said I hadn't starting working on my own version of the joke. Of course, I'll be damned if I'm going to repeat it here. 8/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews Back to the Future (1985)

Well, well, well. I would eventually get around to this one, wouldn't I? I have, of course, seen movies before I started doing reviews, and I've got a lot of catching up to do in that regard. I don't think there are many of those movies that I've seen more than Back to the Future (1985), which is one of my all-time favourites. It's one of those movies that I don't think anyone hates; it's just got too much charm for that. Starring Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly, Christopher Lloyd as Dr. Emmett 'Doc' Brown, Lea Thompson as Lorraine, Crispin Glover as George McFly and Thomas F. Wilson as Biff Tannen.

Back to the Future (1985)

Where to begin? Well, for one, the premise and main plot is one of the most defining time-travel stories of all time. It really feels like every time travel story that came after this used Back to the Future as their inspiration, or at least their basis for how the 'physics' of time travel works. It seems like a really complicated story, but the way they tell it makes it seem so simple, and a big part of that is Marty's perspective. Using Marty as our eyes so that Doc can explain how the science behind the Delorean and the Flux Capacitor works really helps simplify it for us, as well as gets out the expositional dialogue in a way that doesn't feel forced. There are a bunch of different story threads here, as well, beyond the main story of Marty getting home. You've got Marty trying to make sure his parents still get together, Doc's murder in 1985, Biff and all his a**holery, there's a lot going on. Each plot arc intertwines with each other so effortlessly that it's really easy to follow what's going on. I give the writing a lot of credit here; you can really tell this went through a lot of drafts and everything was really well thought out. The first act does a great job of establishing a lot of the elements that come into play later, like the clock tower, Marty's guitar skills, even small things like their uncle being in prison so Marty has something to joke about later.

Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly

The humour in general is really good here. There's a lot of situational comedy with Marty being a fish-out-of-water, but the situational comedy doesn't stop there. There's also little moments like the subtle stuff in the background which gets influenced by Marty's involvement. You also get a lot of big, over-the-top stuff from Doc, George being a nervous wimp, Biff being an idiot, a lot of this humour is very character-oriented, and the fact that the characters are so unique and well-defined results in a lot of really unique jokes coming out of it. Combine that with a unique story and unique jokes coming out of that as well, and it all adds up to 'the humour in this movie is super unique across the board'. Like I said, the characters are really well-defined. They all fit into their archetypes, sure, but there's enough layers beneath the surface to really make them feel like original characters on their own. I think a big part of it is seeing who they are in 1985 vs 1955; having that little extra layer of knowledge goes a long way towards endearing us to them when we see how much they've changed from 1955, with George and Lorraine especially. The opposite is true for Biff: the fact that he's remained exactly the same for 30 years is an effective way of making us really hate the guy. I think that's what makes him such a great antagonist despite, at the end of the day, just being the same tired bully cliche we've gotten before.

Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown

The presentation of this movie is outstanding. You can really tell this was made in the 80s, but at the same time, the movie doesn't feel overly dated or laughable by today's standards. The town of Hill Valley is clearly a set, but there's something charming about that which just adds to the 'small country town' vibe they've got going on. Mr. Sandman playing on Marty's arrival was the perfect choice; it really sets the mood perfectly. The Delorean disappearing and reappearing is handled perfectly; it's practically seamless. The only time the effects don't quite hold up is when Marty begins disappearing from existence, but the way the scene is framed, it's not so distracting as to lose it's effectiveness. But, I've danced around this long enough: the original music is perfect. It's honestly one of my favourite movie scores of all time: the main theme is one of the most perfect pieces of orchestration ever. It never fails to make me smile, and they always use it at exactly the right moments. That one piece of music just tells the story of adventure, and it compliments the movie perfectly; it makes the final race to get Marty home all that more suspenseful and exciting. It could make any mundane situation seem ten times more grand and epic than it naturally is. Alan Silvestri did a wonderful job with this.

Lea Thompson as Lorraine

The acting is great across the board as well. Michael J. Fox was the perfect pick for Marty; he's just so likeable and charismatic that he's got us on his side as early as him being late for school. He plays the role in a very down-to-earth way, and really grounds Marty in reality, but he's still able to get in those big reactions that are always just so funny. It's hard to nail both, and Fox does it perfectly, as well as having amazing chemistry with Christopher Lloyd. Lloyd crushes it as the eccentric Doc Brown, he just doesn't miss a beat. He's almost the opposite as Fox; he's usually going big and over-the-top with his reactions, but when he needs to be more subdued and quiet, he nails those moments as well. Without the perfect pairing of Fox and Lloyd, Back to the Future would not be... well, Back to the Future. The supporting cast are great as well, particularly Lea Thompson and Crispin Glover. As with a lot of stories like this, they find themselves needing to play multiple versions of the same character, and they nail every aspect of it. Thomspon is great as the wide-eyed schoolgirl, but also as the jaded housewife, while Glover is the perfect hopeful teenager and the resigned adult. Thomas F. Wilson is also the perfect pick for Biff; I'm sure he's the nicest guy in real life, but he's able to portray this absolute s***stain of a person without missing a beat. Everything about his performance just makes you want to hate this guy, and it's another thing that transforms this cliche bully villain into something more.

Thomas F. Wilson as Biff

If you wanted me to nitpick, I probably could, but nothing could devalue Back to the Future (1985) in my eyes. No movie is perfect, but when a film gets this close, you might as well call it like it is. 10/10.

Off the Cuff Reviews The Big Lebowski (1998)

I always like these types of stories; stories that tell a familiar narrative but with a key twist that deconstructs the entire thing. The Big Lebowski (1998) is one of those stories, and it does it about as well as I've ever seen it done. I don't even have anything to clever to say here to lead into the bulk of the review. It's just a really great movie. Starring Jeff Bridges as Jeffrey 'The Dude' Lebowski, John Goodman as Walter Sobchak, Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski, Steve Buscemi as Theodore Donald 'Donny' Kerabatsos, David Huddleston as Jeffrey 'The Big' Lebowski and Sam Elliott as The Stranger.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

I mentioned that this kind of story is a familiar narrative but with a key twist. The familiar aspect of the narrative is the crime / detective angle. Someone is kidnapped, there's a ransom, but a bunch of different connected parties are after the same thing, and it's confusing and complicated until it isn't. The mystery presented in this movie is actually a very clever one; it certainly left me guessing. It's presented very nicely and, for the most part, we never feel like the movie is hiding anything from us; at least, nothing that the main character doesn't yet know. You never feel smarter than the 'detective', which can ruin a lot of good detective stories. Likewise, the film never leaves us in the dust. We learn certain things before the 'detective', though we never get too much that it ruins the overall story. It's very well-paced in that regard, even as things get more convoluted as the movie goes on. Once it all ended, it did take me a moment to put ALL the pieces together, but that's a testament to the film not spoonfeeding us all the information in one go. Like I said, it's a clever story.

Jeff Bridges as The Dude

The key twist, however, is that the 'detective' in quotation marks is not a normal detective. He's not even a detective. He's just some guy who gets wrapped up in all of this because some guy peed on his rug. That's the catalyst for this whole story; this guy gets his rug peed on. And it just works. That's the tone of the movie; The Dude is really just stumbling his way through all of this, just trying to get his life back. And yet, everyone around him is treating him like he knows everything, doing what they would normally do to the detective in this story: setting him up, trying to squeeze him for information, drugging him and knocking him out, you get it. Meanwhile, he's just being his regular self; laid-back, carefree, and it's a great comparison. He cares enough about the situation that it still feels earned when he works it out, but he cares for a completely different reason than he normally would in a story like this. I can't stress enough how much I enjoy genre-deconstructions like this, especially when it feels earned.

John Goodman as Walter

The other side of the coin is the glimpse we get of The Dude's regular life and his normal cohort. The scenes in the bowling alley are among my favourite in the entire movie. The dialogue between The Dude, Walter and Donny is immaculate. The dialogue in general is really witty and clever, that's true throughout the entire movie, but the bowling alley scenes in general are wonderful. The rapport between the three of them, the roles they have in their friendship group, the spot-on delivery, the half-assed non-sequiturs, the almost minute long exchange towards the beginning where they just keep saying the same s*** over and over again; it all feels real and natural and I love it. The comedy across the board really lands here, and I have a feeling it'll just improve on a rewatch. It's really diverse in it's style of comedy; they don't just go for one type of joke here. You get the fish-out-of-water Dude in this world of crime, the out-there humour with the friends, the weird-ass dream sequences that somehow work... it's just this really unique combination of familiar tropes that shouldn't work together but somehow do, and that's the best way I can describe the movie as a whole.

Steve Buscemi as Donny

Not to mention the cast is perfect. The Dude was supposedly written for Jeff Bridges, and I can completely see why. It would be very easy to play this role as a one-note bum, but Bridges brings this extra layer to it; you can tell in his performance. He also has pitch perfect chemistry with John Goodman, who is a treasure to this Earth and always has been. I absolutely love John Goodman; he might be one of my favourite actors out there, and he nails Walter. I love how irredeemable he is, he's just the worst person ever, and Goodman brings him to life in a very real way. Steve Buscemi was the comedic highlight for me; he didn't get the most laughs, but he got them the most consistently. Basically every time he piped up, it was perfect. Julianne Moore played a very eccentric character very effectively, Sam Elliott's voice is like silk on the ear canal, David Huddleston is a very imposing individual... just everyone played their roles perfectly. I don't know what else I can say here. Aside from the ending feeling a little rushed and not getting as much closure as I would have liked with all the characters, this was a fantastic movie.

Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski

It's easy to see why The Big Lebowski (1998) became the cult classic that it is today. I'm sure to watch it again. I'm sure to love it again. I definitely think everyone should watch it at least once; it's too unique to miss out on. 9.5/10.