After thirty-six years, the Halloween classic “Beetlejuice” received a sequel.
In 1988, Tim Burton’s cult classic comedy-horror movie “Beetlejuice” was released. Thirty-six years later, it finally got a sequel. The original movie centered around a young couple, Adam and Barbara Maitland (Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) who die by an accident while visiting their vacation home in Winter River, Connecticut, and are now haunting their newly-moved in house guests Charles Deetz (Jeffrey Jones), his daughter Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder), and his new wife Delia Deetz (Catherine O’Hara). In an effort to remove the new residents from their home, they hire bio-exorcist Betelgeuse. But after learning about his crude antics, they start to regret their decision and discover the very strange coincidence that Lydia Deetz can see them. If you want to watch “Beetlejuice”, I would recommend it, as it is a good movie and will provide some helpful context for the sequel. But I would not consider it a necessity, as “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” contains a fair bit of exposition and has a plot not all too dependent on the first film.
Returning as the main character, Ryder’s Lydia Deetz is the host of a popular ghost hunting show called “Ghost House”, where she investigates haunted houses and attempts to give closure to these passed souls. She now has a daughter, Astrid Deetz (Jenna Ortega), who does not believe in her supernatural abilities and resents the unwanted attention her “freak” mother’s TV show brings her. Due to this, Astrid attends a boarding school and has hardly any contact with her mother. Lydia has also been dating her show’s manager, Rory (Justin Theroux) after she met him grieving the death of Astrid’s father. The inciting incident comes when she gets a call from her step-mother (Catherine O’Hara returning as Lydia Deetz) informing her that her father has died. This causes her to return to their house in Winter River for Charles’s funeral, accompanied by Delia, Rory, and Astrid. But as the processions commence, a new relationship is born, and an old enemy begins to reappear in her mind, Lydia quickly realizes her stories in Winter River are not over, and the town is just as creepy as ever.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is a wonderfully wacky film that — unlike most sequels released many years after the original — wholly succeeded in capturing the essence of what made the first “Beetlejuice” movie so popular. This movie never fails to make fun of itself and address the absurdity of the basic concept, while also fully committing to the style that makes it so unique. In a gray cinemascape so afraid of anything colorful, it is wonderfully refreshing to see a movie so bright, vibrant, and an absolute blast to look at for ninety minutes. Tim Burton’s unique style of directing is in vintage form, as the movie explores awkward camera angles, fascinatingly unsettling character and world design, and dialogue that is somehow both incredibly exaggerated and strangely realistic.
“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” marked the kick off of spooky season in movie theaters around the country, and while it would have been quite enjoyable for this one to be a Halloween release — I have a hard time thinking of a more Halloween-y movie — it can be enjoyed at any time of the year. And come Oct. 31, it will probably be available for rent on one streaming service or another. So if you are looking for a great Halloween movie in a few months and do not mind spending a few bucks, this is the perfect one to curl up with a blanket, grab some candy, and immerse yourself in the vibes.
Similar to its predecessor, “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” is chalk full of great performances from the star-studded cast. Even though it had been 36 years since she had played the character, Catherine O’Hara seemed to have no trouble stepping back into the role of the overly dramatic and incredibly hilarious Delia Deetz. Her portrayal of the icon as a grieving widow is reason enough to see the movie, as it seems the standout has only gotten better with age. Ortega had some massive shoes to fill as the heir apparent to Ryder’s iconic teenage rebel, but it seemed as if the pressure could not have fazed her less. She was outstandingly weird and relatable as Astrid Deetz, and the way she complimented both Ryder and O’Hara was the highlight of the film. Coming in, I was pretty sure she would simply be playing a carbon copy of her character from “Wednesday” as casting an actress to play one personality in all their movies seems to be commonplace in Hollywood nowadays, but she did a surprisingly good job at distinguishing Astrid from that role. She felt like a completely new, complex character, which was refreshing to see.
The only performance that was rather disappointing was that of Ryder. It was not bad by any means, but I think she failed to capture that unsettling atmosphere that Lydia brought to every room in the first movie. But this may not have been entirely her fault, as the film seemed to have trouble deciding if it wanted Lydia to still have that wonderfully weird side, or if they wanted to give her more of a motherly role to balance out Astrid’s character. Last, but certainly not least, Michael Keaton reprised his role as the titular character Beetlejuice. And while his performance didn’t match the unsettlingly crude character from the first one — though I doubt that was even possible — his disturbing and creepy presence could still be felt in the scenes he did not even appear in, which is a very difficult thing to achieve.
Even without the most cohesive and memorable script, this cast was still able to put together a great set of performances that, along with Burton’s excellent creative choices, made this movie what it was. Was the plot perfect? No, far from it. There were visible holes all over the place, and the abuse of a few specific plot devices was definitely noticeable in some places. But that is not why you watch “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice”; you watch “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” for the stunning imagery, incredible performances, and an atmosphere so weird, wacky, and unique that it would be almost impossible to replicate. And as long as the plot shortcomings do not keep you from enjoying those aspects of the film — which they did not for me — you will have a good time. A fun movie that you do not have to think about too hard — four out of five stars.
