Enjoyable? Somewhat. Well-written? Not on your life.

Rating: 5/10 (21 March 2005)

The 1980s were once thought to be the absolute nadir of Western culture, with America producing so much throwaway drivel that some of the best examples of art from there during this decade were made by outsiders. It is only because of the sheer vapidity of the 1990s and 2000s so far that we can look back upon the 1980s with any sense of longing or nostalgia, and the titular duo of this film give us a good understanding of why. The film begins with a great dialogue from George Carlin about this great and wonderful future that was inspired by two legendary musicians. Okay, so far, so good. It is a concept that, while not totally brilliant, can be made to work if exploited properly.
The problem here is that the subjects of the film are so utterly vapid that they flatten their own story. They claim to be rebelling against a society that does us all wrong, and that part is true enough, but one fundamental law is that one should never kill a tyrant until one knows whether his successor is an improvement or not. Bill and Ted, as a model for society, definitely aren't. I have read some previous comments that note the fascistic undertone inherent in the film, and I can only agree. Anything that the heroes disagree with or don't like the appearance of is bogus, apparently. One can just sense the kilns being fired up for the autistic or phobic individuals in the San Diemas of the future.
Another interesting point is the whitewashing of history that occurs in the process of retrieving the historical figures, all of whom present far more interesting characters than the titular heroes. Apparently, maidens from France of the Middle Ages look exactly like gunslingers of the New Mexico of colonial America, who in turn look exactly like modern Californians. Sure, the inclusion of Napoleon helped with the European element (not). After all, we all know that French military leaders are foul-tempered midgets with bad personal relationship skills. And it is probably best to say nothing at all about Genghis Khan, since he never gets to say anything at all during his performance. About the only opportunity with these characters that gets any exploration at all is Socrates, who provides an interesting insight into the idea of an ancient Greek philosopher being transported into modern times. Unfortunately, since Robert Heinlein had a lot of ideas that Socrates expressed thousands of years ago, such as people being made to make decisions of conscience before they vote in affairs that affect millions, I can honestly imagine Socrates would find Bill, Ted, and pretty much everyone at San Diemas High abhorrent.
The film's strengths, which are few in number, include the aforementioned George Carlin. If Doctor Who had been an American show, but had the similar lengthy, sometimes controversial, history that the BBC gave it, it's a safe bet that Carlin would have at some point played the good Doctor. Carlin displays the cool that Bill, Ted, and every San Diemas citizen who gets the slightest screen time seems to want to have. Indeed, part of the fun of Bill And Ted is taking note of how much the so-called good guys act like the dickweeds that they are so fond of calling others. Dan Shor gives a very good performance as Billy The Kid in spite of physically being totally wrong for the part. Shor looks as if he is at least four inches too tall for the part, and is far too muscular. Not to mention that his front teeth are not prominent enough, but that gets back to the Orwellian rearranging of history recently talked about. In spite of these mismatches, Shor at least sells himself as someone you'd take seriously if you met him in the Wild West.
Interestingly enough, the film sat on a shelf for two years before Orion bought the rights to it from the De Laurentiis Group and released it upon an unsuspecting world. They must have liked the teen market a lot, since a mere four years would pass before they retooled one of the biggest artistic triumphs they had ever financed for such a market, and as a happy result, went bankrupt. I understand how cutthroat the film business is, but you'd think that film studios would look back at history to see this correlation between disrespecting one's audience and a poor box-office return.
One more positive of this film is that it doesn't give a lot of detail about the future that Carlin's character is trying to protect. This allows the audience to fill in some details for themselves, which in turn makes the vapidity of the folk we are told it is based on somewhat less objectionable. With people like Rufus in power, it is easier to believe the future is not dominated by complete morons like the present.
Like the sequel, I gave Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure a five out of ten. If you're bored and have nothing better to do, it is an okay way to pass ninety minutes. But if you want something to watch that will do more than fill time, then there is nothing to see here.