The ‘Beetlejuice’ franchise is out of juice

Dylan Hostetter, Opinions and Humor Editor

As I sat in the theater and listened to the opening horns of Danny Elfman’s rejuvenated “Beetlejuice” score, I would be lying if I said I didn’t have high expectations. Sadly, almost expectedly, my expectations were not met.

The stage was set for a modern classic, with director Tim Burton alongside many of 1988’s original “Beetlejuice” cast returning — but the energy of that film was simply not present. 

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” falls into many of the traps of what has come to be known as a “legacy sequel,” a film that takes place years after the original and features classic characters, music and themes alongside just enough new inclusions to justify its existence.

Some “legacy sequels” are successful in their mission — they pay enough homage to the original film to satisfy longtime fans but differentiate themselves enough to hook new ones. In most cases, that means the new additions have to be worthwhile.

This is where “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” loses its footing. It pays so much attention to making sure it includes all of the creatures and jokes fans remember from the original film that it doesn’t allow enough time to create new memorable moments.

Do I love seeing Betelgeuse run an office full of shrunken-head employees? Yes. Do I love that they brought back the insanely cool stop-motion sandworm? Of course. But these aesthetic elements are not enough alone to carry a film.

One of the most famous scenes from “Beetlejuice” is when the newly dead Maitlands possess the invading Deetz family and turn them into a Jamaican karaoke troupe. Watching Catherine O’Hara lip-sync to “Banana Boat (Day-O)” always brings a smile to my face, but when “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” threw in a needless replication of this scene, I had nothing to smile about.

To be fair, compared to many “legacy sequels,” this film does a good job of not being a carbon copy of the original. Burton and the writers inject plenty of fresh ideas into this new venture — though I would argue they may be trying too much.

At the heart of the film are three generations of Deetz women: O’Hara’s Delia, Winona Ryder’s Lydia and a new addition to the franchise, Jenna Ortega, as Astrid. 

Astrid’s father is no longer in the picture, having died some years before — a point of contention between her and her ghost-sensitive mother who, for some untold reason, is unable to see her deceased husband.

Similar to the young wedded Maitlands in the first film, focusing on an emotional mother-daughter story could have provided “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” with enough of a through-line to outweigh the wealth of callbacks and fan service. Instead, the film is overcrowded with not only too many characters but also too many ideas. 

I noticed neither I, nor the mostly-full theater I saw the film in, laughed at many of the jokes presented, and I think a lot of that comes down to the acting. Justin Theroux’s performance as Lydia’s gold-digging boyfriend, and Willem Dafoe’s ex-actor now afterlife detective Wolf Jackson are both played for laughs, yet subtly miss the mark.

If you were to go by her introduction, Monica Belluci would have been one of the main villains of the film. Instead, Betelgeuse’s soul-sucking ex-wife was a completely unnecessary inclusion that ate up precious screen time — and I mean unnecessary to the fullest extent. She had absolutely zero effect on the overall plot or ending of the film.  

Betelgeuse himself had a bit more screen time than he was given in the original, but I can’t say that was a good thing. Going into this film, I was most excited to see Michael Keaton fall back into one of his most iconic comedic roles, but I am sad to say I was disappointed.

Keaton, unlike his boisterous and disgusting characterization of the character in the 1988 film, feels a lot slower. It’s understandable, having been 36 years since he last played the character — but Betelgeuse, the immortal “bio-exorcist,” shouldn’t feel as if he’s aged a day.

The original film, upon a preparatory re-watch, still holds up  — I think it’s one of Burton’s best works. I didn’t expect a 36-year belated sequel to hold a candle to the quality of the original, but while “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” has some nostalgic highs and baffling lows, I left the theater feeling overall underwhelmed. The movie isn’t bad — it’s just “OK.”

While I doubt we’ll ever see a third “Beetlejuice” film, “Beetle-Mania” seems to still be in full effect. The film has grossed over $200 million domestically, and will surely be a streaming hit come the approaching Halloween season. Who’s to say that maybe in another 36 years, “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” won’t be looked at as fondly as the original?