by Len Weiler
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, the sequel to the original
Beetlejuice (1988), opened two weeks ago [Friday 9/6/24] and has been the top grossing film in the US every day since. While moviegoers are eating it up, the critical consensus for the new picture is – well, there’s not much consensus: On
Rotten Tomatoes its critical score is a decent 77%, while the
MetaCritic score is a pretty tepid 62. David Rooney in
The Hollywood Reporter enthuses: “
The zippy pacing, buoyant energy, and steady stream of laugh out loud moments hint at the joy Burton appears to have found in revisiting this world, and for anyone who loved the first movie, it's contagious.” Meanwhile, Richard Lawson complains in
Vanity Fair that: “
[w]ith its limp humor, canned sentiment, and over-egged efforts to gross us out, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a waste of a good cast and a defacement of a classic film’s legacy.”
This is a comparison review of both movies.
The original Beetlejuice was the tenth biggest grossing movie of 1988. Made on a budget of about $12 million, it took in $75 million in ticket sales. It also became the mothership for a whole industry of Beetlejuice entertainments: an animated TV series (1989-1991), three video games (early 1990s) and Beetlejuice: The Musical, which opened on Broadway in April 2019 and ran for 11 months before the covid shutdown, then reemerged in 2022 to run for another 9 months. The critical consensus on the original film was also mixed, but generally more positive than that for the new sequel - Rotten Tomatoes consensus rating: 83%; MetaCritic score: 71.
I recently saw Beetlejuice Beetlejuice at the local cineplex. I wasn’t exactly wowed. The new iteration isn’t terrible, but it isn’t terrific either. It seemed far less remarkable than my remembered impressions from back in the day when I saw the original. But that was over thirty years ago. So I wondered - would Beetlejuice still seem superior to its sequel if I saw it now? The simplest way to answer that question was to refresh my recollection by watching the 1988 original the very next day. (And yes, it is stream-able.)
Sometimes, watching a movie I liked a lot as a teen or young adult is disappointing. It is either distressingly dated or, even worse, far less clever, touching, or interesting than what I remembered – a reflection of my youthful naivety or inexperience, perhaps. But other times, thankfully, the experience is just the opposite. This was the case with the 1988
Beetlejuice, which holds up very well indeed despite the passage of decades. That movie remains remarkably fresh, engaging and just plain fun. Despite tremendous advances in animation and special effects technology over the succeeding years,
Beetlejuice comes across as newer, livelier, more whimsical and way funnier than the 2024 sequel.
Why? The simple truth is that
Beetlejuice was groundbreaking;
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a retread. It’s trying harder to be faithful to its predecessor than to come up with anything new or reflective of the current era. While it’s true that some sequels are better than the original movies, that is neither the norm nor the case here. This stands to reason, when you think about it. Most sequels are made within just a few years of the original; it's unusual for a sequel to come three and a half decades after the first picture; rarer still for the later film to be helmed by the same director as the first. And age makes a difference: Tim Burton was 29 when he made Beetlejuice; now he’s 66. In the late 80s, he was a whirlwind of energy and ideas and in his most fruitful creative period. Over a nine year period he made and released six of his best, most successful pictures:
Pee Wee’s Big Adventure (1985),
Beetlejuice (1988),
Batman (1989) - the Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson version,
Edward Scissorhands (1990),
Batman Returns (1992), and
Ed Wood (1994). Can you name one film Burton has made in the last fifteen years that’s the equal of any of those in spirit, inventiveness or critical success?
Or, let’s compare the roster of actors and performances.
Beetlejuice starred a young Alec Baldwin (29) and Geena Davis (31) as a deceased young couple who, as ghosts, are trying to preserve their dream house. Both Baldwin and Davis were up-and-comers at the time. For Baldwin it was his first starring role in a feature film; for Davis it was her second, after
The Fly (1986) opposite Jeff Goldblum the year before.
Thelma and Louise (1991), which made her famous, was still three years off. They are the protagonists of
Beetlejuice – youthful, beautiful, eager, and very much alive on screen (even as ghosts). Neither they nor their characters play any part in
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.
In the 1988 movie, the ghosts of the recently deceased protagonists hope to scare off a crass couple who want to purchase and remodel their house. They unwittingly engage a ghost/demon who bills himself as an exorcist but is really a chaos agent. This is “Beetlejuice” - brilliantly and manically played by 35-year-old Michael Keaton. The buyers are the Deetzes: scheming, egomaniacal Delia [33-year-old Catherine Ohara (
Home Alone, Schitt’s Creek)] and the rather non-descript Charles (Jeffrey Jones). Delia’s goth teenage daughter Lydia [Winona Ryder (then just 14)] is her opposite, and also the only living person who sees the ghosts and sympathizes with them.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice was made and is set thirty-six years after the first movie. Although Beetlejuice is supposed to be ageless, he is again played by Keaton, who is still pretty good but whose age (now 71) is nevertheless showing. Reminded me a bit of watching Robert DeNiro playing Frank Sheeran in
The Irishman (2019), as a digitally de-aged 40-year-old chasing another guy and gingerly traversing an expanse of seaside rocks like the 75-year-old the actor really was. Catherine Ohara (now 67) is back as Delia, similarly aged and in a much-diminished role; and her daughter Lydia (Ryder, now 50) has become the protagonist mom, albeit with the same goth hairdo she sported as a teen, now totally incongruous. As the modern Lydia, Ryder came across to me as stiff and confused – trying unsuccessfully to be two things at once – an adult version of goth teenage Lydia and a caring 50-year-old. mom herself. Lydia’s daughter Astrid [up and coming actress Jenna Ortega (21)] is, like her mother before her, an imperiled teen here. She is also the only significant character in
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice - other than Beetlejuice himself (sort-of) – with any spark.
Beetlejuice had an actual story arc, a crazily grotesque, outlandish yet playful one. Beetlejuice Beetlejuice has a series of events strung together into a convoluted, tenuous “plot” that never coheres into what could fairly be called a story. It tries over-hard to be offbeat, but we notice the trying, so the product comes across as artificial and overly derivative.
There is one bright spot to Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, though:
Speaking very generally, both films have a similar structure. And they both conclude with an elaborate, kitchy, Busby Berkeley-like treatment of a big song from a previous era. In Beetlejuice, it’s the fun, toe-tapping, 1961calypso hit Jump in the Line (Shake, Senora) by Harry Belafonte. Less lively, but way funnier is the extravagantly goofy send up in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice of the Jimmy Webb head scratcher MacArthur Park - the 1968 hit version sung by Richard Harris. This production number is a hoot - almost worth the price of admission. Even in 1968, the song was an anomaly, with its orchestral interludes and melodramatic delivery of the ludicrous lyrics - a ridiculously pompous joke of a song – even though it turned into a top 40 hit.
MacArthur's Park is melting in the dark
All the sweet, green icing flowing down
Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
'Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
Oh no!
Why is the rather mediocre Beetlejuice Beetlejuice such a hit? I don’t know. But I’ll posit a few reasons anyway. Young moviegoers are one to two generations removed from the original
Beetlejuice, and many may not have even seen it, so for them it is new. Plus the younger crowd generally loves spectacle and special effects, and there’s a bunch of that stuff in
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. Also, there’s a dearth of big screen competition recently: the only truly competitive film recently has been
Deadpool & Wolverine, released nearly two months before
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, so its box office has begun to fade (although it was still the third highest grossing film last week). Moreover, like I said earlier, this sequel is not terrible. And, obviously, there’s no accounting for taste, right?
BeetleJuice (1988):
1 hour 32 minutes
Grade: A-
Available to stream free with a subscription to MAX [ or a Disney, Hulu MAX bundle]; available to rent [pay per view] on many platforms, including Amazon and Apple TV.
Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024):
1 hour 45 minutes
Grade: B-
Currently widely available in theaters.
