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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism