Beetlejuice Beetlejuice
Dustin Chase
For better or (usually) for worse, sequels have always been a byproduct of the Hollywood ecosystem. “The Fall of a Nation” became the first film called a sequel in 1916, following the success of “The Birth of a Nation.” Director Tim Burton‘s long, and I mean long, anticipated sequel to the 1988 scrappy, weird “Beetlejuice” ties “Top Gun” with 36 years between the original and “Part 2”. A sequel is more of a “let’s do that again” replication than, say, “The Two Towers” or, more recently, “Dune: Part Two,” which are continuations of one predetermined story. Nostalgia is the latest sequel fad, bringing beloved films from the 80s and 90s back from the dead. Burton and his collaborators understand the nostalgic selling point, as much from the original film is recreated, built upon, and extended, yet it doesn’t feel the same. Is “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” just not as good as the original, or is it because we are not pre-teens anymore?
Patriarch Charles Deetz died doing what he loved most: bird watching. He is survived by his eccentric wife Delia (Catherine O’Hara) and daughter, now popular television medium Lydia (Winona Ryder). They return to Winter River, the infamous house on the hill, now known to the locals as the ghost house. Lydia’s college-age daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega) is along for the very “Deetzy” brand funeral but has anything but love for her mother and producer boyfriend Rory (Justin Theroux). Underground, Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) senses the return of his almost bride Lydia, but another bride from his past, Delores (Monica Bellucci), has pieced herself back together to reclaim the popular bio-exorcist whom she called her husband generations ago.
"Is 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' just not as good as the original, or is it because we are not pre-teens anymore?"
Working around the absence of actor Jeffrey Jones (You can Google why he isn’t involved in the film), who played Charles Deetz, provides a creative outlet for Burton in which he uses animation and a running gag I won’t spoil. Let’s just say part of the character does appear in the story. The script has more of these goofy concepts that feel born right out of the creative space Burton and writer Michael McDowell were in back in the 80s. The opening sequence reintroduces us to the quaint little town with overview shots, but this time, it’s stormy, set in the fall, right before Halloween. Ryder, O’Hara, and Keaton step back into their character’s eccentricities with ease as the newcomers line up around them as characters that fit right into this comedic world of the dead.
The force working against this sequel isn’t in the production design (which is very good), the camera work (even better than the original), or even the writing (which could have been stronger). It’s time, not just the three decades that have passed, but all the films we have seen since Burton delivered something we hadn’t. It’s wise to stick to nostalgia because that’s the only thing “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has to hang its guts on. The red wedding dress, grown-up Little Jane Butterfield (pushy Realtor just like her mom), and the sculptures that came to life in the original are present to take us back. One of the elements that aided the first film was how short, brisk, and compact it was, not to mention the charisma of Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin. By comparison, this one is a bit bloated with ideas and elements that don’t work, like Bellucci as Beetlejuice’s ex-wife, the drunk priest, or Astrid’s sudden boyfriend. Still, Burton is selling nostalgia; he is offering Beetlejuice to a new generation, and it’s certainly not the worst sequel we have seen in the last 36 years.
Final Thought
Tim Burton and the original cast deliver nostalgic entertainment, outweighing whether the sequel is worth the wait.
1 thought on “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice”
Pingback: Three Early Films That Could Shine… or Fade This Awards Season – Texas Art & Film