--- title: "Back to the Future Part II: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/back-to-the-future-part-ii/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/back-to-the-future-part-ii" critics_score: 65 critics_reviews: 10 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Back to the Future Part II (1989): what the critics said Critics' score 65 from 10 reviews: 4 positive, 5 mixed, 1 negative. 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 — David Jenkins Rating 4/4/3. 21 October 2015. 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 review](https://lwlies.com/reviews/back-to-the-future-part-ii) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Rating 3/4. 22 November 1989. 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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/back-to-the-future-part-ii-1989) ## Empire — Tom Tunney Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/back-future-part-ii-review/) ## Los Angeles Times — Sheila Benson Fi1m's normalised score 68/100 (inferred from the text). 22 November 1989. 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 review](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-movie-review-future-ii-back-to-the-bank-20151007-story.html) ## The New York Times — Janet Maslin Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 22 November 1989. The page could not be read, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. Its specific praise or complaint cannot be verified. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/22/movies/review-film-a-sequel-of-sequence-and-consequence.html) ## Time Out — GA Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/back-to-the-future-part-ii) ## Slant Magazine — Eric Henderson Rating 2.5/4. 25 February 2009. 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 review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/back-to-the-future-part-ii/) ## Radio Times — John Ferguson Rating 3/5. 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 review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-yed3pk/back-to-the-future-part-ii/) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1988. 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 review](https://variety.com/1988/film/reviews/back-to-the-future-part-ii-1200428065/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 6 November 2005. 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 review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/back-to-the-future-part-ii-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/back-to-the-future-part-ii.md