Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/beetlejuice-beetlejuice-review-a-nostalgic-magical-return-with-ambitious-missteps/

"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice captures the original's magic but stumbles over its narrative ambition.

Tim Burton manages to maintain the visual charm and peculiar atmosphere that captivated so many viewers, with the cast fully embodying both new and classic characters. However, the narrative structure, overloaded with characters and subplots, leads to some disenchantment, and the dance sequences don't quite reach the level of its predecessors.

That said, there's still lots of joy and fun in reuniting with Betelgeuse and the bizarre world he inhabits, as well as enjoying Danny Elfman's unforgettable score. Excellent for watching with the family!"

Rating: B-

Without revealing any spoilers, I want to share my thoughts on the sequel titled Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Originally released in 1988, this sequel maintains the same humorous tone as its predecessor. It offers a blend of cheesy charm and new characters that bring fresh energy to the screen.

The nod to Charles Deetz in the film was both clever and funny, seamlessly incorporating the character despite the actor's passing. The filmmakers managed to pay tribute to the original while staying true to the comedic essence established by Tim Burton in 1988.

Michael Keaton reprises his role as Beetlejuice with impeccable comic timing and character evolution. While he may have put on a few pounds, his performance remains as entertaining as ever. Winona Ryder shines in her lead role, transitioning from her role in "Stranger Things" seamlessly.

Jenna Ortega delivers a standout performance, embodying her character with skillful development. Surprisingly, Willem Dafoe's character, whom I initially had reservations about, turned out to be quite comical and well-executed. Bob's appearance in the film is endearing, and his character is sure to win hearts.

Fans will likely be clamoring for Beetlejuice baby toys after watching the film. One minor disappointment was a particular wedding scene that felt overly drawn out and reminiscent of the 1980s era. It could have benefited from some editing to avoid dragging on.

I missed seeing Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis make even a brief cameo in the film, given their absence was noticeable. The digital recreation of the sandworm from 1988 was enjoyable, but the 2024 version lacked the same charm, coming off as cheesy rather than exciting.

The buildup surrounding Dolores, a new character, was intriguing but fell short in the climax, leaving me wishing for a more impactful resolution. Despite this, considering the 35-year gap between the original and the sequel, the film holds up decently.

Overall, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice offered a fun and laughter-filled experience. I recommend watching it in theaters to appreciate its entertainment value. It's a worthy sequel that captures the essence of the original while introducing new elements. So, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice!

Recapturing the sparks of brilliance that made a movie a screen classic is a tall order to fill, to be sure. It can be difficult to work the same magic a second time, especially if the first effort was so eminently memorable. And, when the sequel in which that second sought-after lightning strike takes 36 years to come into being, the chances of realizing that level of success once more can be even slimmer. So it is with this long-awaited follow-up to director Tim Burton’s 1988 classic horror spoof, “Beetlejuice.” It’s an offering that, despite some flashes of inspired lunacy, significantly pales by comparison. To begin with, the film gets off to an incredibly dull start; it took me almost 45 minutes before I even cracked a smile (though I’ll admit the humor comes along at a more sustained pace from this point onward). Then there’s the picture’s convoluted plot, which has several story threads that could have easily been pared back, if not eliminated entirely (never mind the fact that this offering’s predecessor suffered somewhat from the same problem, though not nearly to the same degree as here). And then there’s the sometimes-disjointed narrative, which could have used some tidying up in spots, particularly when it comes to the inclusion of bits that work but that don’t seem to bear any meaningful correlation to one another. To its credit, however, the picture features the same stellar production design that distinguished the original, smatterings of raucous humor that genuinely echo the first film, and fine performances by its three principals – Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder and Catherine O’Hara – who effectively re-create the iconic characters they portrayed previously. However, many of the new cast members brought on board for this installment (Justin Theroux, Willem Dafoe and Monica Bellucci in particular) add little to the production, serving as disappointing reminders of those who are missing this time around (most notably Geena Davis, Alec Baldwin, Sylvia Sidney and Glenn Shadix). In many regards, I honestly must admit that this release’s shortcomings don’t surprise me that much, as they’re typical of so many of the other lackluster attempts that have been made at reviving numerous classic movies and television series (though I was hoping that a filmmaking talent as gifted as Tim Burton might defy those odds with this offering). It’s undeniable that a small dose of heartwarming nostalgia can be a pleasant tonic for those who could stand to have their spirits lifted a bit, but don’t expect some kind of miracle cure from this one – the medicine needs to be stronger to accomplish that, and this remedy simply isn’t up to it.

Well it's 2024, and that means that movies like this get a 10 of 10 even though back in the 90s, 00s, 80s, they would get maybe a 5/10.

The good news is, save a mention of meh, Climate Change it is basically Meh politics free. There is no lecturing. It makes no attempt to shame the audience for being male, straight, white, Christian, or Jewish. All it does is try and entertain the viewer... and I appreciate that.

And, honestly, I can see Ortega as Ryder's daughter. I really can. I know there's a racial thing going on there but, honestly, personality wise, it was really the perfect casting. Especially for her daughter in the Beetlejuice world. It was just spot on casting and though Ortega doesn't do a 1:1 capture of Ryder's attitude in the first movie, she is close enough where I'm primed to believe it.

However... the red pen is your friend. Bellucci should have ended up on the cutting room floor, you didn't need that plotline. Dafoe should have been rewritten to exclude the Bellucci line. The focus should have just been on Ortega and Ryder and the Deetz family again.

It tried to do too much and the result was that you didn't really become invested in any of the plots.

But, again, in 2024 eyes, it's a good flick compared to the political crap everyone else is making.

"Lydia" (Winona Ryder) has made a good living from her ghost-hunting style books and broadcasts much to the sceptical chagrin of her teenage daughter "Astrid" (Jenna Ortega) but they have to try to get on for the funeral of "Charlie" who was married to their mother/grandmother "Delia" (Catherine O'Hara). Meantime, in the underworld "Delores" (Monica Belluci) has quite literally stapled herself back together and is bent on reuniting with her eponymous husband (Michael Keaton) but he's les than enthusiastic at the prospect. Luckily, the young "Astrid" meets the handsome "Jeremy" (Arthur Conti) and before we know it, she has opened a portal to the nether world that soon has her mother racing around to rescue her from eternal damnation whilst the opportunistic stripey fellow tries to use that predicament to keep himself from his ruthless spouse who is leaving an increasingly gruesome trail of carnage for TV detective "Wolf" (Willem Dafoe) to sort out. There are plenty of enjoyable enough shenanigans going on as this quickly paced film knits these threads together, but somehow I found it all just a bit too flat. Like an "Addams Family" film that's over-written and doesn't feature anything like enough of Keaton or Dafoe and features way too much of Ortega's typically teenage character whom Hades probably wouldn't have wanted. It does rally well at the end with help from a big cake and the dulcet tones Richard Harris - great to hear that with cinema sound again, but aside from a characterful effort from O'Hara this didn't really want me saying his name once let alone thrice. It's fine but hasn't much spark.

An enjoyable second helping of <em>'Beetlejuice'</em>.

<em>'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice'</em> isn't far adrift the original, even if I'd still rank the first film higher. I gotta say those behind this did a good job with the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6yDanmWI1E" rel="nofollow">teaser trailer</a>, I hadn't even seen the 1988 flick but that got my interest. Speaking of trailers, I'm glad they changed that cringey pilates instructor line for Astrid - right call!

Michael Keaton remains the best cast member, though Winona Ryder and newcomer Jenna Ortega are not far off. Willem Dafoe doesn't feature much but naturally still manages to be one of movie's strong points. Justin Theroux's character didn't really do anything for me, while Monica Bellucci feels a little underused but perhaps not; what we get from her as Delores is still decent and arguably enough.

Sounds like Tim Burton doesn't want to another sequel, which is probably for the best but if the studio wanted to go behind his back I, I'm afraid, would have to allow it on this occasion strictly for the obvious title possibility. Though I guess the ritual has already occurred with the two titles combined. Fairs.