Search
Search results
Bill Hader recommended Mona Lisa (1986) in Movies (curated)
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) in Movies
Jun 12, 2018
Who remembers Roger Rabbit?
My first summer job was in 1988 (I'm old) so I remember watching Who Framed Roger Rabbit over and over and loving it more each time I watched.
The late, great Bob Hoskins was able to hold his own against the melee of cartoon extravaganza put forth all around him. The story is fun and exciting with lots of twists and turns, but to just be a part of the cinema roller-coaster that is this film was all part of the fun.
Or seeing Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse together. Or seeing a piano duel with Donald and Daffy Duck.
I have never been a big fan of remakes, but they could probably do a great remake if Zemeckis decided to remake his own movie. I would be a fan of that.
The late, great Bob Hoskins was able to hold his own against the melee of cartoon extravaganza put forth all around him. The story is fun and exciting with lots of twists and turns, but to just be a part of the cinema roller-coaster that is this film was all part of the fun.
Or seeing Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse together. Or seeing a piano duel with Donald and Daffy Duck.
I have never been a big fan of remakes, but they could probably do a great remake if Zemeckis decided to remake his own movie. I would be a fan of that.
Evelyn Kelly (21 KP) rated Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Fun for everyone
I love this movie!! Roger is such a clumsy, adorable, crazy character that you can't help falling in love with.
Bob Hoskins is great in this role as the grumpy detective who hates toons.
And Jessica Rabbit, voiced perfectly by Kathleen Turner, is fantastic.
The crossover from animation to real action is seemless. It is a movie to enjoy over and over.
Bob Hoskins is great in this role as the grumpy detective who hates toons.
And Jessica Rabbit, voiced perfectly by Kathleen Turner, is fantastic.
The crossover from animation to real action is seemless. It is a movie to enjoy over and over.
Andy K (10821 KP) created a post
Jan 1, 2018
Fred (860 KP) rated Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) in Movies
Jan 22, 2019
Almost all of the classic characters are here! (2 more)
Roger is a great new "classic" character
Bob Hoskins & Christopher Lloyd are great!
A masterpiece of American animation
The movie starts with a cartoon that could just about pass as one of our favorite cartoons from the 40s (if not for the computer-hand-drawn objects within) & from there, it's non-stop. We're treated to a noir, but very colorful, detective story filled with American animations best characters. Characters from different studios share the screen for the first time ever. Bugs & Mickey, Donald & Daffy & a scene at the end which has just about everybody. The mixture of live-action with animation is nothing short of remarkable & a great technical achievement. Of course, they would not seem to interact so well if not for the human actors themselves. A lot of times, even today, when actors are working against nothing, they seem to stare to the wrong spot or past the character. But in Roger Rabbit, it's not the case. Hoskins is great at keeping this illusion. I heard there may be a sequel in the works & hope that it's true. Hopefully, they get the rights to Popeye this time.
Rache (174 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Jan 6, 2019
Funny (1 more)
Inappropriate
Nearly But Not Quite
Contains spoilers, click to show
Starting with the introduction of a puppet private detective, this is intended to be a gritty, noir, detective story with the added twist of Jim Henson puppets as characters. While film technology has vastly improved since such films as Cool World, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, puppet technology hasn't really changed, so the puppets all have overtones of The Muppets and Sesame Street.
Despite the humour inherent in puppet characters, and the use of puppets as an analogue for minority populations (up to and including a puppet who has been 'humanised'), it's neither funny enough nor enough of a social commentary to fit into one of those two dichotomous genres.
Noir comedy, carpet-bombed with dick jokes, riddled with puppet humour, and boiling with 'social commentary', this film doesn't really land in a single genre, and the ones it tries to are too different to make a really good film. It turns out a bit like 'Muppets She Wrote' with added swearing and crudery.
Melissa Mccarthy plays the typical irreverent, foul-mouthed, stereotypical racist cop, and interacts really well with the puppets, but even all of her talent can't save this film.
It's funny (the puppet sex scene is just insane), carries some preachiness about racism (trying to decide how much 'puppet' makes someone a puppet based on a surgical implant), thoroughly irreverent (foul mouthed, 'drug' addled puppets), has an okay storyline (the twist is fairly well written), and concludes with the usual happy Muppets ending, but it feels like it's trying too hard to do too much. Perhaps, if it had tried to do less, it could have been a really good film.
All of that taken into account, it's not bad for something to watch for lighthearted fun, if you don't want to think too hard about it.
Despite the humour inherent in puppet characters, and the use of puppets as an analogue for minority populations (up to and including a puppet who has been 'humanised'), it's neither funny enough nor enough of a social commentary to fit into one of those two dichotomous genres.
Noir comedy, carpet-bombed with dick jokes, riddled with puppet humour, and boiling with 'social commentary', this film doesn't really land in a single genre, and the ones it tries to are too different to make a really good film. It turns out a bit like 'Muppets She Wrote' with added swearing and crudery.
Melissa Mccarthy plays the typical irreverent, foul-mouthed, stereotypical racist cop, and interacts really well with the puppets, but even all of her talent can't save this film.
It's funny (the puppet sex scene is just insane), carries some preachiness about racism (trying to decide how much 'puppet' makes someone a puppet based on a surgical implant), thoroughly irreverent (foul mouthed, 'drug' addled puppets), has an okay storyline (the twist is fairly well written), and concludes with the usual happy Muppets ending, but it feels like it's trying too hard to do too much. Perhaps, if it had tried to do less, it could have been a really good film.
All of that taken into account, it's not bad for something to watch for lighthearted fun, if you don't want to think too hard about it.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated The Happytime Murders (2017) in Movies
Aug 23, 2018
Funny for a Puppet Movie
I did not go in to this movie with the highest of hopes but I came out with a big smile on my face. There were a lot of people that told me not to go to this movie, but I never listen to anyone and this is a good reason why. I try not to judge a movie by the trailer for the the big reason they never tell the whole story and you have to trust the person making the trailer. So I went anyway.
I am really glad I did because it was really funny from start to finish. I thought they would put in to much toilet humor and they didn't. What they did put in was well placed and fit the story line great. It was also kind of great seeing a different side to brutal murders. Without blood and guts they were able to be more creative with the killing and give you something very different.
I do have to give props to the puppeteers. At the end of the movie they showed some clips of behind the scenes and some of the things they had to do to get the shots looked difficult. Also how they shot the interactions with human puppet were done fantastic, It really did not look like CGI was used at all even though there was a lot.
Brian Henson did a great job writing the script. The use of humans vs puppets was done very well. It almost reminded me of a Who Framed Roger Rabbit type of movie. I almost thought at the end the killer was going to be a puppet in a human body. Wouldn't that have been a twist.
Buddy cop movies have always been a favorite of mine from Lethal Weapon to Bad Boys. This movie was right up there. I would say the best but it had its moments. I did think Melissa McCarthy wasn't going to be the choice, but she worked out. He type of humor did have place in this movie, although in some places it was over the top. All the puppet cast was really good. You mostly had human puppets but there were some animals thrown in the mix. I do with there were more monster puppets like Oscar the Grouch or Elmo. That would have been great.
Overall I think it is worth a watch if you like puppets and murder mysteries and don't mind the occasional sex joke. Until next time, enjoy the show.
I am really glad I did because it was really funny from start to finish. I thought they would put in to much toilet humor and they didn't. What they did put in was well placed and fit the story line great. It was also kind of great seeing a different side to brutal murders. Without blood and guts they were able to be more creative with the killing and give you something very different.
I do have to give props to the puppeteers. At the end of the movie they showed some clips of behind the scenes and some of the things they had to do to get the shots looked difficult. Also how they shot the interactions with human puppet were done fantastic, It really did not look like CGI was used at all even though there was a lot.
Brian Henson did a great job writing the script. The use of humans vs puppets was done very well. It almost reminded me of a Who Framed Roger Rabbit type of movie. I almost thought at the end the killer was going to be a puppet in a human body. Wouldn't that have been a twist.
Buddy cop movies have always been a favorite of mine from Lethal Weapon to Bad Boys. This movie was right up there. I would say the best but it had its moments. I did think Melissa McCarthy wasn't going to be the choice, but she worked out. He type of humor did have place in this movie, although in some places it was over the top. All the puppet cast was really good. You mostly had human puppets but there were some animals thrown in the mix. I do with there were more monster puppets like Oscar the Grouch or Elmo. That would have been great.
Overall I think it is worth a watch if you like puppets and murder mysteries and don't mind the occasional sex joke. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Talking to friends about what this one could be was a roller coaster. Lots of us were hoping it would be Skyscraper, but our realistic guesses were somewhere nearer previous secret screening offerings. Films that looked good but were probably not going to make massive waves on their own. We mused on the possibility of The Incredibles 2, but it didn't get much further than "that would be the dream" kind of thinking.
I have never attended a screening that filled me (pretty much everyone) with so much glee. Glee is the only appropriate word there because I had a smile on my face the whole way through.
14 years of waiting and I wasn't disappointed. For me, this one was much more enjoyable than the first. I can't deny that that's partly from the rush of getting to see it before friends do and I get to rub it in their faces... yes I know. No I won't grow up.
Skip forward to getting out of the cinema after 10pm. What? How?! The film itself runs at just under 2 hours long. That's a long time to get a kid to sit still. Hell, that's a long time to get me to sit still. There are certainly parts of the film that could have been trimmed down. Some of them made little sense to me, and some just seemed unnecessary. That being said, it didn't detract from the enjoyment.
Neither did the fact that the villain was rather predictable, as was "big twist". Had this been a new movie with no previous incarnation to give me expectations then I'm not sure how I'd have felt about it. At a guess I probably would have been disappointed. The rush of what it was has probably helped the movie over these issues.
Months ago I joked that I would have just watched a movie of Jack-Jack and his powers. That feeling hasn't changed. Every time I see this film I will be giggling and laughing so hard at that I may embarrass myself. Jack-Jack and that raccoon stole the show. A whole screen full of grown adults wheezing and crying with laughter is something to behold.
Throughout the whole 2 hours little Jack-Jack is definitely the bright spot that put a grin on my face. The raccoon incident it definitely the top scene for me. Auntie Edna came into her own, and I feel like they were channeling some Baby Herman from Roger Rabbit when they came up with that scene. What had me mesmerised though was when Lucius/Frozone gave Jack-Jack a ball of ice to eat. The attention to detail had me a little speechless, just try and look at the lens effect on that sphere of ice and tell me it's not amazing
I have never attended a screening that filled me (pretty much everyone) with so much glee. Glee is the only appropriate word there because I had a smile on my face the whole way through.
14 years of waiting and I wasn't disappointed. For me, this one was much more enjoyable than the first. I can't deny that that's partly from the rush of getting to see it before friends do and I get to rub it in their faces... yes I know. No I won't grow up.
Skip forward to getting out of the cinema after 10pm. What? How?! The film itself runs at just under 2 hours long. That's a long time to get a kid to sit still. Hell, that's a long time to get me to sit still. There are certainly parts of the film that could have been trimmed down. Some of them made little sense to me, and some just seemed unnecessary. That being said, it didn't detract from the enjoyment.
Neither did the fact that the villain was rather predictable, as was "big twist". Had this been a new movie with no previous incarnation to give me expectations then I'm not sure how I'd have felt about it. At a guess I probably would have been disappointed. The rush of what it was has probably helped the movie over these issues.
Months ago I joked that I would have just watched a movie of Jack-Jack and his powers. That feeling hasn't changed. Every time I see this film I will be giggling and laughing so hard at that I may embarrass myself. Jack-Jack and that raccoon stole the show. A whole screen full of grown adults wheezing and crying with laughter is something to behold.
Throughout the whole 2 hours little Jack-Jack is definitely the bright spot that put a grin on my face. The raccoon incident it definitely the top scene for me. Auntie Edna came into her own, and I feel like they were channeling some Baby Herman from Roger Rabbit when they came up with that scene. What had me mesmerised though was when Lucius/Frozone gave Jack-Jack a ball of ice to eat. The attention to detail had me a little speechless, just try and look at the lens effect on that sphere of ice and tell me it's not amazing
Lee (2222 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
May 18, 2019
Much better than I was expecting
I never really 'got' Pokémon. I've never watched it, never read it, never had any interest in it whatsoever. I actually gave the game Pokémon Go a shot, as I was already a big fan of Niantic's previous game, Ingress. But swiping balls randomly at floating animated creatures on the screen? Yeah, not really my idea of fun. So, why then would I go watch a Pokémon movie where, for some strange reason, Deadpool is voicing the lead character, a cute little fluffy Pikachu? Well, in the interests of providing balanced, impartial Smashbomb reviews that's why. And, because my nephew asked me to take him...
I guess one of my concerns before heading in to see Detective Pikachu was how exactly the Pokémon we're going to be portrayed. If this was going to be some kind of Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks style movie, where over-the-top CGI characters are thrust upon the world of over-the-top human characters in some crazy adventure aimed at six year olds, then I wouldn't be very happy. Thankfully, it turned out to be the compete opposite.
21 year old Tim receives news that his father, top detective Harry Goodman, has gone missing following a car accident, and is presumed dead. He travels to his father's place of work - Ryme City, a modern metropolis where humans and Pokémon live happily side by side - and joins forces with Harry's Pokémon partner, Detective Pikachu. Tim discovers that he can understand what the wise cracking, cute little Pikachu is saying to him and they set about trying to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding Harry's suspected death.
I was pretty impressed from the offset just how well this movie is presented. It's set in a world where humans and these strange, wonderful creatures live alongside each other in harmony, yet the Pokémon are never really presented in that wacky manner that I described earlier with other CGI character movies. It's extremely well done and feels both natural and believable. And because the focus of the movie is more on the story, and the mystery to be solved, rather than revelling in the fact that this is a live action Pokémon movie, it made it all the more enjoyable. This felt to me something more alike to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. And I really liked it!
Better still, I rarely felt as though I needed any prior knowledge of Pokémon in order to appreciate and enjoy it. There's a brief explainer near the beginning regarding the whole trainer/balls/battles concept, which didn't make it any less ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, but that just didn't matter as it wasn't really necessary to the main plot. Having never experienced Pokémon in any other media form, I obviously can't comment on how faithful this is to any of that, but as a family movie I'd say this is a pretty big hit.
I guess one of my concerns before heading in to see Detective Pikachu was how exactly the Pokémon we're going to be portrayed. If this was going to be some kind of Smurfs or Alvin and the Chipmunks style movie, where over-the-top CGI characters are thrust upon the world of over-the-top human characters in some crazy adventure aimed at six year olds, then I wouldn't be very happy. Thankfully, it turned out to be the compete opposite.
21 year old Tim receives news that his father, top detective Harry Goodman, has gone missing following a car accident, and is presumed dead. He travels to his father's place of work - Ryme City, a modern metropolis where humans and Pokémon live happily side by side - and joins forces with Harry's Pokémon partner, Detective Pikachu. Tim discovers that he can understand what the wise cracking, cute little Pikachu is saying to him and they set about trying to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding Harry's suspected death.
I was pretty impressed from the offset just how well this movie is presented. It's set in a world where humans and these strange, wonderful creatures live alongside each other in harmony, yet the Pokémon are never really presented in that wacky manner that I described earlier with other CGI character movies. It's extremely well done and feels both natural and believable. And because the focus of the movie is more on the story, and the mystery to be solved, rather than revelling in the fact that this is a live action Pokémon movie, it made it all the more enjoyable. This felt to me something more alike to 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit'. And I really liked it!
Better still, I rarely felt as though I needed any prior knowledge of Pokémon in order to appreciate and enjoy it. There's a brief explainer near the beginning regarding the whole trainer/balls/battles concept, which didn't make it any less ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, but that just didn't matter as it wasn't really necessary to the main plot. Having never experienced Pokémon in any other media form, I obviously can't comment on how faithful this is to any of that, but as a family movie I'd say this is a pretty big hit.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)