Skip to main content

Your musical acumen is most impressive.


Bill & Ted Face the Music
(2020)

(SPOILERS) Bill and Ted’s remissness has led to existence itself hanging in the balance, fiddling while the universe goes to pot. The duo are much like us, basically, ignoring the inexorable inevitable creeping up on them until it seems like it’s too late. It would probably be a stretch to accuse Bill & Ted Face the Music of predictive programming, given its long gestation period. But then again, this is a movie where the saviours of everything turn out to be women rather than irredeemably useless white men. And their lives’ “work” culminates in 2020, after which nothing will be the same again. As one of the few movies actually released in cinemas this year, it can’t help but invite a spotlight on any such elements. Whatever may or may not be the case with Bill and Ted Face the Music and the larger picture, it’s an infectiously uplifting experience. Writers Chris Matheson and Ed Solomon have lost none of their touch and don’t waste a moment of the compact ninety-minute running time, and director Dean Parisot is the perfect choice to bring a light but sprightly touch to the proceedings.

And Bill and Ted themselves? Alex Winter is a bit more weathered, but otherwise, his is an entirely consistent Bill S Preston, Esq. Winter has rarely acted over the past few decades, eking out a corner as a prolific director of documentaries, but Bill is a reminder of the very talented comic performer he is. He’s the energetic core of Face the Music and a delight at whatever age of Bill he is portraying (I particularly enjoyed his “English” and elderly incarnations). Keanu Reeves? Sad as it is to admit, the energetic verve has gone out of Keanu. He’s closer to Herman Munster playing Theodore “Ted” Logan. When he looks baffled, it’s more like Reeves the actor mulling his lines than an encapsulation of the innocent cluelessness of the Ted we remember. That said, Reeves is a hoot as his older, more “nefarious” selves.

It’s still a joy to see even a somewhat at-a-loss Reeves reunited with Winter, and even more so to have them running through Matheson and Solomon’s spectacularly bewildering causal conundrums. These arrive from the first with the exact nature of Missy’s (the returning Amy Stoch) current associative relationships to the Logan clan through having divorced Ted’s dad – the also returning Hal Landon Jr – and married Ted’s younger brother, Beck Bennett (not forgetting that Missy is also Bill’s former stepmother). In order to come up with the song vital to uniting the world (and thus preventing time and space from unravelling), they decide to travel forward in time so as to take the song from their future selves (which wouldn’t be stealing, in their incontestable logic, “if we’re stealing it from ourselves, dude”).

That’s the plotline with all the juiciest material, as they first meet their 2022 selves, then 2025 (posing as anglicised successes at Dave Grohl’s house), followed by their ridiculously pumped-up incarcerated versions and finally their care home incarnations in 2067. Meanwhile, their musicologist daughters Theadora “Thea” Preston (Samara Weaving) and Wilhelmina “Billie” Logan (Brigette Lundey-Paine) set off on a reboot of the first film’s mission, but instead of assembling figures for a school history project, they’re after a medley of musicians to aid their fathers in composing the elusive classic song.

Weaving and Lundey-Paine bring the necessary touch of their dads’ daffiness to their roles (the worst choice would have been to make them really, really clever). Before the picture was released, one sarcastic wag suggested that it would transpire that the daughters turn out to unite the world, in the spirit of retconning their fathers’ pervasive patriarchal oppressiveness. Which is basically what happens, even if the writers initially envisaged them as Bill and Ted’s sons (but didn’t think it worked). Albeit, Bill and Ted appear to be the ones who come up with sending infinite versions of themselves – and Princess Elizabeth and Prince Joanna, now played by Erinn Hayes and Jayma Mays, presumably because the original actresses were now a bit too old and unattractive – across time and space to unite everyone who ever lived in performing the song. There’s also that Thea and Billie admit it wasn’t so much the song that did the trick as everyone playing it. Which is as well, because the song’s… a bit shit, frankly.

Indeed, the best composition here comes at the start, the very, very funny Wyld Stallyns wedding performance of That Which Binds Us Through Time – The Chemical and Physical and Biological Nature of Love; An Exploration of the Meaning of Meaning Part 1. Much of the best material occurs early on, actually, even though I had a fixed grin on my face throughout. The couples’ counselling (“I mean, we’re a couple of couples, right?”) is another highlight.

Elsewhere, Solomon and Matheson perhaps haven’t put enough thought into making the likes of Louis Armstrong, Jimi Hendrix and Mozart funny/memorable in their own right (remember Freud/ Beethoven/ Napoleon/ Joan of Arc in the original?) As for Kid Cudi, I had absolutely no idea who he was and even now haven’t quite registered the reasoning for his inclusion. There’s also no proper adversary this time, probably no bad thing as it’s more in line with the original, but the mistaken machinations of Holland Taylor’s Great Leader are less than compelling. They do, however, give rise to the movie’s best new character in the form of Anthony Carrigan’s robot, Dennis Caleb McCoy. Carrigan’s as scene-stealing in his bashful ineptitude as William Sadler’s Grim Reaper was last time ("Pull yourself together, you're a robot!").

Of whom, it’s a joy to see Sadler back in the Death saddle, his appearance guaranteed when Dennis manages to kill half the cast and they end up down below – as, bizarrely, does Dennis, perhaps a shout out to ensouled AI. Matheson and Solomon even make moments of sincerity play. Scenes like making up with the Grim Reaper or expressing gratitude to their senior citizen selves manage to be funny and touching, such is the dopey-eyed enthusiasm of the picture. It’s also nice to be reminded of George Carlin in 2720 (I think we should be grateful a too-costly CGI scene with Rufus fell by the wayside). Carlin, of course, is an evergreen source of opinion on how the elite have reduced us all to the states of obedient sheep. Were he still alive, he’d doubtless have a whole lot to say right now.

Like a number of recent sequels – T2: Trainspotting, Blade Runner 2049 – this 29 years-later third instalment is, against all the odds, a more than worthy capper to our dippy duo’s run. At various points, the arrival of Bill and Ted Face the Music seemed pie in the sky, mooted for a decade and a half, with hit-and-miss attempts to get it into production for much of the past eight years. It’s most excellent that they final succeeded. Perhaps Bill and Ted can be sequestered to save our reality as we know it.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

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.