'Beetlejuice' is One of My Childhood Films That Hasn't Aged. What About the Sequel?

"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" What Are We Going to Do with You?

"Beetlejuice" is one of those films from my childhood - and probably many others’ - that I return to with pleasure. Despite the years that have passed, it hasn’t aged in any way. Even the clunky special effects by today's standards (which were fantastic and very realistic back then) are now treated by many with near-reverence. Burton's unbridled vision, starring the grotesque bio-exorcist sex addict and a young Winona Ryder, marked the beginning of a series of films with similar aesthetics for the director. "Beetlejuice" was funny, campy, scary, but also incredibly warm and cozy. It’s no wonder that so many people still hold it in high regard.

But that was in 1988. Over 35 years later, Tim Burton seems to have realized it’s been a while since he made a box office hit or award-winning film. Maybe he wanted to prove that he could also play the sequel game, refresh a hit from the start of his career, and jump onto a new track. He took the old "Beetlejuice", convinced Winona Ryder, Michael Keaton, and Catherine O'Hara to join the cast, and squeezed his own partner, Monica Bellucci, into the script. He was advised to include Jenna Ortega, who would be for this new generation what rebellious Ryder was all those years ago. He mixed, stirred, and served it up at the Venice Film Festival. It received only a three-minute standing ovation, which by this festival’s standards, is not a great sign.

Because it's hard to be amazed by "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice". The film feels as though Burton asked artificial intelligence to help craft the storyline. He commanded it to use all the funniest and best moments from the first film, and the result was something senseless, repeating the same scenes over and over. Suffice it to say, the entire plot revolves around what happened to the character played by Jeffrey Jones in the original "Beetlejuice," who doesn’t appear in "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" at all. He was first replaced by a bizarre stop-motion animation and then a walking model that bore no resemblance to the real Jones. Yes, we understand that Jones couldn’t be in the film due to serious allegations against him. But those charges have been known for over a decade - couldn’t they have found a better solution in the script? The Maitlands also didn’t make it into the sequel, but their characters weren’t treated as cruelly as Charles Deetz’s was.

Beetlejuice Neutered

Winona "I Have One Expression" Ryder and Catherine O'Hara worked wonderfully as the absurd stepmother-stepdaughter duo in "Beetlejuice." In "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice," there’s even a line from Delia Deetz that Lydia’s rebellion has vanished. Script-wise, it’s theoretically passed on to Lydia’s daughter Astrid, but it’s a first-world problem kind of rebellion. In short, the intelligent and clever Lydia has been replaced by a woman tormented by her own demons. Astrid was supposed to be the intelligent and clever one, but she makes such monstrously stupid decisions that questioning her intelligence becomes a must. Of the women, Catherine O'Hara seems to be having the most fun, once again playing her inflated-ego artist character, just moments away from bursting.

The frustrating family friend from "Beetlejuice" has been replaced in "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" by Lydia’s partner, Rory. It becomes obvious far too quickly who Rory is, but in case there’s any doubt, he’s given truth serum in the final moments, admitting everything in under a minute. Monica Bellucci’s character, the stunning Delores, could have been a refreshing addition, but she seems to be there only because she’s currently Tim Burton’s partner. Her role is nonsensical, contributes nothing to the plot, and if she weren’t in the film, no one would miss her five minutes of screen time. And why, mio Dio, does an Italian woman playing an Italian character speak English in the movie, when it wasn’t a problem to introduce her character in Italian earlier? Willem Dafoe’s character suffers from a similar fate - his presence in the movie serves no purpose, though he looks funny. Even the cat-eaten lady from the famous waiting room contributes more than Dafoe’s detective.

And then there’s Michael Keaton. He’s easily the brightest spot in the whole show, but... taking Beetlejuice out of the crass 80s and 90s aesthetic results in the character being neutered. Beetlejuice was disgusting, a grotesque sex addict, a "dog chasing women", as they used to say. He was bad, deceitful, and had no empathy. And, above all, he longed to return to the world of the living to make their lives a misery. In "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice", our slightly decomposed bio-exorcist serves as a "fetch and carry" guy. Asked to do something - he’ll do it. He’s lost his terrifying nature, and saying his name three times no longer threatens the whole community. In fact, it threatens no one at all because Beetlejuice has lost his bite. The disgusting demon has clearly aged and just doesn’t have the energy to scheme anymore. He’s happy in retirement - and it really shows, though Keaton works hard to squeeze whatever he can out of his now heavily-constrained character.

Let Me Explain My Joke, Viewer

The film also suffers from the need to explain very obvious jokes while glossing over moments that actually require explanation. Yes, we understand that "soul train" means "train of souls," which is why there’s soul music at the station, and everyone’s dancing. It’s funny for the first 10 seconds. After a minute, it’s annoying. After two minutes, you’ve had enough. And yet it keeps going because, you see, dear viewer, they think it’s FUNNY. And there are far too many scenes like this—dragged-out, idiotic filler, absurd coincidences that could be funny due to their absurdity, but aren’t because you can feel the script shortcuts.

There were, of course, some funny jokes. But while every joke hit in "Beetlejuice", here we’re left with weak firecrackers that don’t stick. And it’s hard to laugh at scenes you’ve seen countless times before (I’m guessing I’m not the only one who occasionally re-watches "Beetlejuice"). In "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice", they didn’t even bother to retell those jokes in a fresh way. They also tried to evoke the aesthetic of the first film, but what worked so wonderfully back then doesn’t necessarily land now. Some special effects were clearly done "in the old style," which is commendable, but others feel more like laziness than deliberate design.

At the same time, there’s no shortage of brilliant details that aren’t easy to catch. I have no doubt that one viewing isn’t enough to appreciate the abundance of references to "Beetlejuice" and beyond, language jokes, scenic gems, and all the little details that you only noticed in "Beetlejuice" after several viewings. The problem is that while "Beetlejuice" made you laugh until you cried, "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" offers so few laughs that I’m not eager to repeat the experience anytime soon. Yes, there’s a lot of love for the first film here, but too many things went wrong for "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" to become the timeless classic for this generation that "Beetlejuice" is for the last one. It’s sad because "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice" feels more like a cash grab than a heartfelt tribute to the past. I left the cinema, to put it mildly, disappointed. I hope no one gets the idea to make "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice"... Some things are better left untouched so they can shine even brighter.

"Beetlejuice Beetlejuice," directed by Tim Burton, produced by Warner Bros. Pictures, released September 6.