there are fine individual moments and ideas here, but Part III is crippled by an unnecessary love story and lack of initiative and zest that induced the first two movies

Rating: 5/10 (22 June 2010)

Seeing as how the science-fiction and the Western are my favorite genres, one would expect "Back to the Future: Part III" to be my personal favorite of the entire trilogy directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd. It has some very fine moments and some great ideas in its form, but unfortunately, "Part III" comes across as being the weakest of the entire trilogy for a variety of reasons, but mostly because it lacks the zest and gusto that so wonderfully induced the first two movies.
After Doc (Christopher Lloyd) is accidentally whisked back to 1885, Marty (Michael J. Fox) discovers the flux capicator-inhibited DeLorean buried in Hill Valley's soil, buried by the Doc years ago before he was murdered by a notorious gunfighter (Thomas Wilson). Marty recovers the DeLorean and travels back to the Old West to rescue Doc, who has become smitten with a frantic schoolmarm (Mary Steenburgen), who was supposed to have died until they interfered.
I think you can see what my first real complaint about "Part III" is. I suppose it was only a matter of time before the screenwriters made the mistake of throwing in a sappy love story for Doc when one was anything but necessary. The first two movies dealt with their romantic subplots with care and tender brilliance, but best of all, they strayed away from Doc. This character needed anything but a love interest. The romantic subplot is sappy, boring, uninteresting, and makes one roll one's eyes and look toward his watch, begging Zemeckis to move along with the more interesting stuff. And also, I'm sorry to say, Christopher Lloyd and Mary Steenburgen are a very awkward screen couple.
"Part III" also suffers because it simply does not have the same inexorable timing and suspense that made the first two movies so magical. Instead of whipping along, it plods along like a man dying in the heat of the sun. And the climax, which is once again drawn-out with suspense intended to build, comes across as dull and routine with tensions everywhere but on the rise. There is also, I'm sorry to say, a lot of hokey dialogue in the screenplay.
Now, however, there *are* some good elements to "Part III." In fact, some of them are brilliant. The idea of Marty assuming the name of Clint Eastwood in the Old West is a fantastic idea and the obvious homage to the climax of "A Fistful of Dollars" is fun and smile-inducing. Performances are once again good. Michael J. Fox's performance is buttoned up and solid; Lloyd is funny when he's not being sappy as Doc; Thomas Wilson is once again sinister and convincing; Mary Steenburg turns out a solid, if whimsical performance, as the schoolmarm; and there are a lot of fun Western cameos by names such as Pat Buttram and Harry Carey, Jr. who can be seen playing poker in the saloon that plays prominently in the movie. All of these good, fun elements do save the movie from being a complete failure, but unfortunately they also make your heart sink as you realize that the rest of the movie falls short of them.
Perhaps the change of direction was the fatal flaw of "Back to the Future: Part III." Perhaps the blend of the Western and science-fiction genres was too patchy and whimsical for it to work. And maybe Robert Zemeckis and his crew were running out of steam with this franchise. In the end, "Part III" is not really a very bad movie, but it is uncharacteristically dull and dry for a Robert Zemeckis movie and unlike the first two movies, is rather forgettable save for its few brilliant elements.