Skip to main content

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey
(1991)

(SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell, as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick.


Evil Bill: First, we totally kill Bill and Ted.
Evil Ted: Then we take over their lives.

My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reeves in the summer of ’91 (inflation-adjusted, it was the size of John Wick: Chapter Two, which emphasises how much parities have changed – the dollar then was worth twice what it is now). They still might be the best back-to-back pairings the actor has had, both trading to some extent on his (then) airhead rep, but effectively showcasing him in entirely different genres.


Of course, this is very much a case of inseparable equals, even if Alex Winter has mostly concentrated on directing since. And of another pair of inseparable equals in writers Ed Solomon and Chris Matheson, the former having been considerably more prolific since, although not necessarily laudably so (the Now You See Mes are hopefully to his chagrin). They mostly ensure Bogus Journey is as inspired and irreverent as the original. Indeed, it’s only problem is that the first two acts are such a delirium of energy and creativity that, once our doofus heroes return to the real world, the proceedings have to content themselves with merely chugging along to a satisfying rather than sublime conclusion.



Evil Ted: Aim for the cat, dude! Aim for the cat!
Evil Bill: I’m trying, Evil Ted, I’m trying!

Much of the fun here comes from watching Reeves and Winter playing evil versions of their alter egos. It has to be said that this isn’t Joss Ackland’s final hour, but Chuck De Nomolos’ – “My old teacher”: “Rufus, my favourite pupil” almost mocks the convention but then can’t be bothered – doppelganger creations find Solomon and Matheson taking on a gleeful deconstruction of the main characters and in so doing making them every bit as appealing as their goodly originals.


Evil Bill: Hello, Logan residence. Evil Bill S Preston, Esq, speaking.

The best of this is that they identify themselves as “Evil Bill” and “Evil Ted”. Trying to run over cats, impersonating the babes with the most juvenile make-believe that the real Bill and Ted inevitably swallow (“We think you’re losers, and we never want to see you again. We’re going to the desert to be alone”) and killing them in the exact location Captain Kirk fought the Gorn in Arena is the icing on cake. They even talk back to their maker (“I hate them. I hate the robot versions of them”: “You made us, Dude”). It’s a shame Matheson and Solomon couldn’t keep the Evil Bill and Ted subplot going while their good versions were in hell, as you can’t help feel there was more ripe material to plunder. The evil robot doubles also deserve credit for knowing when they’re outmatched (“Kudos to you, good human usses”).


Ms Wardroe: The girls, they can play, but you guys.
Bill: Girls mature faster than guys.
Ted: Plus, they started in the fifteenth century.

Bill and Ted’s winning line in stupid-clever is in full effect as they’re given a mountain to climb; their dreams are no closer to fulfilment, with the babes far more musically proficient and Ted still under threat of military school (asked by his dad what he will do if they lose the battle of the bands, he replies “I guess, maybe sell some more blood”). Added to which, Missy – the appropriation of the name is further evidence that the Moff has stolen wholesale from Bill and Ted with his version of Doctor Who, only, like Pam Ayres’ mother’s flit gun, devoid of charm – has divorced Bill’s dad and married Ted’s (“Maybe she’ll marry you”: “Yeah, then I’ll be my own stepdad”).


Ted: I hope this works.
Bill: It worked in The Exorcist I and III!

Matheson and Solomon carry off some marvellously silly conceits, such as Melvin-ing death putting him sufficiently off his stride that Bill and Ted can escape and attempt to warn their families. And I love that they throw in the I and III line to possession working in The Exorcists (beautifully nerdy). Hal Landon Jr is hilarious as Ted (“I totally possessed my dad!”; “Catch you later, cop dudes!”) More might have been made of the séance sequence (“How’s it going, New Age dudes?”), other than seeing down Missy’s top (“That’s your mum, dude!”). But it reconfirms this is a very Christianity-cued take on death and the afterlife, which at least makes things simpler.


Bill: Ted, it’s the Grim Reaper, dude.
Ted: How’s it hanging, Death?

The scene stealer of Bogus Journey is William Sadler, of course, most recently showing off his butt as a not-so-great villain in Die Hard 2: Die Harder (making you wonder if Death’s later rear reference was an intentional nod). Death is truculent and an extremely bad sport, shifting the rules when he loses (“Best of seven?”: “Damn right”), but what sets him off so perfectly is Sadler’s strangled Eastern European enmity (“You have sunk my battleship” is funny wholly for the delivery).


Death: I will… take you back.
Bill: You played very well, Death. Especially with your totally heavy death robes.
Death: Don’t patronise me.

Hewitt is taking his Death iconography from Ingmar Bergman, of course, and its thus entirely appropriate that he should plunder Powell and Pressburger for heaven. Hell is as much Greek legend-inspired, with an eternity of repetition of a dread experience, but also takes in Warner Bros cartoons (“Dude, this is a totally deep hole” as they continue falling down it), heavy metal (“We got totally lied to by our album covers”), and misconstruing Satan’s apparent altruism (“You know, you got a bad rap, but you’re actually an okay dude”).


The selection of personal hells might have merited a bit more thought behind them, ranging as they do from the brutal (“Get down, and give me infinity!”), to suitably gross (“How about… a kiss for your dear old granny” – fantastic that Bill’s gran is Granny S Preston, Esq), to rather lame (the Easter bunny).


Ted: Dude, we’re in heaven, and we just mugged three people.
Bill: I know. We better get out of here before we ruin it for everyone.

That Bill and Ted should quote Poison lyrics to gain an audience with God seems entirely appropriate (“Every rose has its thorn…”), and it’s only with the introduction of Station(s) that the picture loses steam a little. Aside from being an extended butt gag –


Ted: You are a most excellent scientist, Station.
Bill: Yes, plus you have a most excellently huge Martian butt.
Death: Don’t overlook my butt. I work out all the time. And reaping burns a lot of calories.


– they’re passive, neither funny nor interesting, and Bogus Journey is unable to maintain its hellish momentum once back on Earth. But the battle has been won by that point. One might pick bones with the return of the piss-take time travel logic motif (loved by aforementioned Stephen Moffat, who could only hope to do it as well, or even in material where it was appropriate), but it isn’t overused and, rather, it’s a neat and efficient way of finishing things off (“Only the winners are going to be able to go back and set something up!”)


Death: You might be a high flier or a little street sweeper,
But sooner or later you dance with the Reaper.

I’ve mentioned a few of the picture’s pop culture references, and it’s gratifying that they’re often the most offbeat ones, such as the solution to a game of charades being Smokey and the Bandit III: Smokey is the Bandit or the end credits “Grim Reaper in lip synch scandal” invoking the ghosts of Milli Vanilli).


Bill: Ted?
Ted: What?
Bill: Don’t fear the Reaper.
Death: I heard that.

Other stupid movies have been more successful (Dumb and Dumber) or more barefaced-derivative (Dude, Where’s my Car, which, don’t get me wrong, is pretty great) but none have been quite as perfect in maintaining a tone of clever stupidity as this trilogy. Because, yes, I’m keeping my fingers crossed. Someone must want to fund the final part. If Gilliam can get The Man Who Killed Don Quixote off the ground after almost two decades, if Pee Wee Herman can get another movie, surely Bill and Ted can go wherever it is they’re due to go next? Of course, I was anticipating Part III when I last watched Excellent Adventure three years ago, but Reeves did at least confirm the follow up to Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey remained on the cards when he guested on The Graham Norton Show earlier this year. It would be most non-non-non-non-non-heinous if they finally got it greenlit. And if all else fails, I’m sure Netflix would lap it up.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.