Critics’ reviews

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

10 reviews from 10 publications. Critics’ score 65: 4 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative.

Back to our review of Back to the Future Part II

65
Positive
4
Mixed
5
Negative
1

The reviews lean towards qualified approval of Back to the Future Part II, with praise clustering around its visual invention, pace and production design. Several critics find enough humour and excitement to enjoy the sequel despite its complications, while the performances provide another source of warmth. Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd’s screen presence earns particular praise, as does the cast’s enjoyment of playing multiple roles.

The main division concerns whether the time-travel plotting is satisfyingly intricate or simply overstuffed. Empire admires its connected narrative and energetic direction, while Little White Lies finds the storytelling disjointed and confusing even as it enjoys the spectacle. Reservations repeatedly concern diminished charm and mechanics crowding out the characters, though the spread runs from affectionate enthusiasm to outright disappointment. Variety is the clearest detractor, arguing that effects and plot machinery displace the original’s energy and heart.

Little White Lies
21 October 2015 · 4/4/3 · David Jenkins
80

Jenkins finds the sequel imperfect but lovable, while arguing that its narrative is disjointed and confusing. He praises its razzle-dazzle production design and suggests the film works especially well in bite-sized chunks.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
22 November 1989 · ★★★/4 · Roger Ebert
75

The review text is unavailable, so its verdict and specific praise or complaint cannot be verified. The page only displays a browser-check message.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Tom Tunney
70*

Tunney finds it solidly entertaining, though less satisfying than the first and third films and largely a bridge between them. He praises its energetic direction and slickly connected time-travel plot, while noting its relentless pace leaves little room to reflect on the story’s absurdities.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
22 November 1989 · Sheila Benson
68*

Benson finds the sequel a lively improvement, though its noisy time-hopping and tacky ending diminish the charm. She praises its inventive visual gags and the appealing screen presence of Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
22 November 1989 · Janet Maslin
64*

The page could not be read, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. Its specific praise or complaint cannot be verified.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· GA
64*

The page identifies this as a film review, but its accessible text contains no critical verdict. The available description only outlines the plot and offers no discernible praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
25 February 2009 · ★★½/4 · Eric Henderson
62

Henderson views the sequel as a cluttered, vulgar debasement of the original’s charms. He praises its depiction of media’s growing omnipresence and its effects on human existence.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★ · John Ferguson
60

Ferguson finds the sequel overstuffed, with its script too clever for its own good. He praises the improved special effects and the actors’ enjoyment of their many roles.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1988 · Variety Staff
35*

The review finds the sequel less successful than the original, with its energy and heart displaced by mechanics and visual effects. It singles out the cheesy makeup and strained credibility caused by characters interacting at different ages.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
6 November 2005 · Angus Wolfe Murray
80*

The critic finds the sequel entertaining and says it retains the original’s humour, excitement and pleasure. He praises its inventiveness and pace, while noting it is less perfectly formed than the first film.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate