Cast:
Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jenna Ortega (Astrid Deetz), Justin Theroux (Rory), Monica Bellucci (Delores LaVerge), Willem Dafoe (Wolf Jackson), Arthur Conti (Jeremy Frazier), Burn Gorman (Father Damien), Amy Nuttall (Jane Butterfield Jr.), Santiago Cabrera (Richard), Danny DeVito (Janitor), and Nick Kellington (Bob) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman [1989], #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, #316 - Batman Returns, #969 - Planet of the Apes [2001], #1257 - Pee-wee's Big Adventure, #1295 - Sleepy Hollow, #1615 - Edward Scissorhands, #2160 - Mars Attacks!)
Review:
"It was only until fairly recently, with all this talk, that I just put all the noise away and I just go, 'Okay, I love the Lydia character.' That was the character that I connected with, like, as a teenager. So I go, 'What happened to this person 35 years later? What weird thing?' You go from cool teenager to some fucked-up adult. What relationships do you have? Do you have kids? What's your relationship with that? It's not something I could have done back then; it's only something you could do once you experience those things yourself. So for me, this became a very personal movie, like a kind of weird family movie about a weird family."
You know, I actually had to go back and look up the most recent Tim Burton film I expressed interest in seeing right then and there. I actually forgot it has been five years since his last feature film, in which I'm sure went completely well in non-soulless remaking in Dumbo [2019] (in fairness, younger me was okay with Alice in Wonderland [2010]). I didn't really think about the chance of Beetlejuice having a sequel, even though I remember having a neat time with it in the couple times I remember seeing it, one originally devised by Michael McDowell and Larry Wilson with helpful re-writing from Warren Skaaren that had plenty of amusement within the bureaucracy of the dead and a free-spirited (read: pervert) bio-exorcist. In some ways, it really is a manic syrupy tribute to the B-movies that Burton grew up with, made in an era where one could just do stop motion and blue screen effects to go with slapstick in a neat 92-minute package. The idea of a sequel has been kicked around long enough that one concept was to have the title character go to Hawaii, but it only gained actual steam in the last couple of years (so just a bit after someone adapted the film into a musical). The screenplay this time around was done by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (best known for developing Smallville and incidentally, Wednesday) while the story was done by Gough, Millar, and Seth Grahame-Smith (probably best known as the writer of the mashup Pride and Prejudice and Zombies).
Sure, the sequel isn't quite at the same level of "good" than the original, but it is evident that Burton and company at least had a good time making it. I didn't really pick it because "hey, sequel to something I liked", I picked it more because I figured it would be the type of film to experience with a crowd at least once (as opposed to the usual "who cares" or half-empty amusement, because even mothers deserve a visit to the theater for the first time since *Cats*). It complements the original while fulfilling two obvious things: thank goodness this was not a lazy "continuation TV series" (or god forbid, a streaming original) and thank goodness it was a film that wasn't merely a lazy vessel for passing the torch. One moves on from the stylings of Harry Belafonte to stuff such as "Tragedy" and "MacArthur Park" without a bump in the road that will surely mean a Beetlejuice double-header in the coming years would be a delightful idea for the spooky season (104 minutes is resourceful enough when you consider the earlier film was also under two hours). Of course, it helps that Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara are committed to not mailing in their returns to go with a few neat moments from the fresh faces to go alongside a few interesting moments involving effects (read: a movie that generally doesn't look like it got shot on one stage), which is probably most amusing in its handling of killing off a character (ironic that a film about a perverted title character featured an actor later found to be a pervert) or in not over-riding the "Beetlejuice baby" into the ground. Keaton might be in his seventies, but he obviously hasn't lost his enjoyment in terms of mischief that he handles in such carefully crafted time on screen (Keaton didn't want to have that much screentime in the film, which actually reflects the original, when you think about it). One can savor those moments of mischief without thinking back to the original and thinking things have gone soft (sure, he might not turn into a snake, but one late bit is pretty hell-raising). Of course, the dynamic of Ortega and Ryder is playing on a few familiar beats (we have graduated from "strange and unusual" to estrange daughter of "strange and unusual"), but Ortega is snappy and charming enough to go with the material for us to follow along with. Theroux is amusingly wormy to stick out, while Bellucci is basically relying on screen presence and little to really do for a movie that isn't exactly keen on having a "big bad" but instead just relies of, shall we say, casual macabre vibes (this is a movie where someone gets their limbs back while playing an oldie tape). Dafoe playing a stock cop type somehow seems on point for worthwhile commitment. In general, the movie inspired a few neat chuckles in its eventual road to getting a climax that borrows a bit from before while feeling the need to try and do something a bit wilder than already mentioned, which is, well, fine. I was conflicted about rating the film for a few days because sometimes it really does take a while to wonder just how "good" something is. The original was pretty neat, and the sequel is fine, but I'm not sure if giving it the whole "good" rating makes sense when there is a totally serviceable option in calling it "fine" (this is when I debate if putting a ".5" rating would be ideal in the future). It is a solid film in the aspects of slipping it on one night and just admiring that a well-made sequel to a film from decades ago will come and go in spooking the gut without churning one's soul, if you know what I mean.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment