The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 

Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 

"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Review #2251: Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

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.

Elemental.

Review #2025: Elemental.

Cast: 

Leah Lewis (Ember Lumen), Mamoudou Athie (Wade Ripple), Ronnie del Carmen (Bernie Lumen), Shila Ommi (Cinder Lumen), Wendi McLendon-Covey (Gale Cumulus), Catherine O'Hara (Brook Ripple), Mason Wertheimer (Clod), Ronobir Lahiri (Harold), Wilma Bonet (Flarrietta), and Joe Pera (Fern Grouchwood) Directed by Peter Sohn.

Review: 

"My parents emigrated from Korea in the early 1970s and built a bustling grocery store in the Bronx...We were among many families who ventured to a new land with hopes and dreams — all of us mixing into one big salad bowl of cultures, languages, and beautiful little neighborhoods. That's what led me to Elemental."

Before I start, here is a list of each and every Pixar film released since Toy Story 4 (2019): Onward (2020)- released in theaters, but in the infamous month of March 2020...Soul (2020)- released in the US on Disney+ but with a theater release for countries without streaming service...Luca (2021)-same process, Disney+....Turning Red (2022)- same process, Disney+...and Lightyear (2022)- actual theater release (but lack of interest by me to actually get around to watch it). I am stating this to basically say that Pixar (or more specifically the Disney machine) are reaping what they sowed with the financial failure that has occurred with this film by what they did with the use of putting animated films on a streaming service while barely promoting Elemental, a film about elements of nature within a melting pot of a neighborhood. Peter Sohn and his experiences as a son of immigrants in New York City in the 1970s helped to shape a seven-year production cycle, for which he co-wrote the story with John Hoberg, Kat Likkel and Brenda Hsueh. Sohn studied at CalArts before working at Pixar, in the mid-2000s, which namely involved the art and story departments; he directed his first film with The Good Dinosaur (2015), which is probably notable as being considered Pixar's "first audience flop".

Admittedly, I picked the movie because I really did want to call streaming an abomination and not have it seem like an off-topic tangent. That, or perhaps to talk about the fact that it helps to be really selective in picking movies-No, not really, I picked it because sometimes going on a lark and picking a movie with little buzz after a week of release has a good chance of surprise. With this one, I would say the film was pretty average in ambition and ultimately decent in mild entertainment. Granted, I wish there was a bit more to the movie more than a mild attempt at detailing just what matters most to growing on one's path, but it still should be a decent experience for 109 minutes. Lewis and Athie make a quality pairing in shaky ground for romance that make for a quality meet-cute without seeming forced or too out of place that shows the nature of their upbringing in making decisions and interacting with people. In short, they make a neat couple for what is needed, even if you and I probably know how it is going to go when the first reaction to fire and water touching is not, well, a blaze of peril and doom. The movie doesn't really have a villain because, well, its only dilemma involves how Lewis will cope with the idea of not being just like her on-screen dad in del Carmen in terms of dream and/or interests. I do like del Carmen here, because even in his distrust of water-folks, you can see where he comes from when it comes to a warping of what is right and wrong in terms of treating more than just your fellow neighbor (at least one that looks like you) the right way. So yes, what matters more than living within certain places and with certain folks only? Making sure that you have raised an offspring that you are proud of in some way. Ommi and O'Hara make for interesting maternal figures in support of that, and one can at least say each element family is somewhat distinct without being too cookie-cutter about emotions and how to handle oneself. In general, the movie does better when not trying to dwell on its attempt at stakes (a flood), which generally means it has a few chuckles and a semi-solid duo to hold the most basic of immigrant allegory together. As a whole, it won't go down as one of Pixar's best movies, but a decent Pixar movie is a still a decent movie to go along with for any day.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Review #1182: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Count Olaf), Liam Aiken (Klaus Baudelaire), Emily Browning (Violet Baudelaire), Kara and Shelby Hoffman (Sunny Baudelaire), Jude Law (Lemony Snicket), Timothy Spall (Mr. Poe), Billy Connolly (Dr. Montgomery), Meryl Streep (Josephine Anwhistle), Catherine O'Hara (Justice Strauss), and Cedric the Entertainer (the Constable) Directed by Brad Silberling (#267 - Casper)

Review: 
When it comes time to turn books into film, I suppose the best ones to use are the ones meant for children, particularly ones with entertaining qualities that will give plenty for the audience to go for - this book series certainly has some of that, along with a defining dark mysterious feel throughout the thirteen book series done by Daniel Handler (under the pen name Lemony Snicket). With so many books to adapt, it's pretty easy to see why one would combine the first three books (named The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window) when making a feature film, although perhaps the best way to adapt these books would be through television (which occurred a decade later). The film obviously intends to replicate the dark style of the series with its look, using only a small range of colors (such as green or black) while being filmed on sound-stages, which certainly is an interesting way to give the film something to stick out. It certainly reminds me of a Tim Burton film with its look, and at one point he was considered to direct the feature (along with Barry Sonnenfeld) - in fact, Handler was hired to write a script for the film, but setbacks (such as concerns over the budget, which ultimately was over $140 million) and delays led to an eventual change from Handler (who had done numerous drafts) to Robert Gordon for the screenplay.

With all of that in mind, the film that comes from it is an okay product that reaches entertainment level more often than not, but it ultimately is a muddled movie that perhaps needed a bit more focus to really reach its full potential. It seems the film works best when it actually is trying to have a plot than with some of its offbeat characters. Honestly, the highlight of the movie is Carrey, who chews as much scenery as one could possibly do under makeup (done by Valli O'Reilly and Bill Corso, who ended up winning an Academy Award for it) without falling too much into self-parody, in part because he is pretty amusing with a good touch of sinister nature to him that keeps the film moving at times. Aiken and Browning are fairly decent, although I wonder if they would've been more interesting with further portrayals for more adaptations. Law is alright in the occasional moments that he chimes in with his voice. The adult characters (besides Carrey and Law) are each fairly silly, oblivious to the the plan of the villain (much like with how it worked with the books), but I feel that each don't really have the kind of presence to make them feel anything other than just okay, as if the episodic nature of the film makes the flow of the film a bit inconsistent, particularly with the end of the second story and the beginning of the third one (serving as the climax). At least the film seems to have a good touch of faithfulness to its source material, and it seems to work just fine at 108 minutes long, but it never really seems to be too comfortable with its tone, trying to do dark aspects with touches of humor that is okay at best. The style is nice and dandy, but the story perhaps needed something more. Perhaps if the film had inspired a desire to have further sequels (which did not come to pass despite being a moderate success), this one would've have came off a bit better, but as a whole this is just an okay if not too exceptional piece of entertainment, one that can be recommended for a fan curious for more from the series or perhaps someone wanting a bit of style within some mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Surviving Christmas.

Review #890: Surviving Christmas.

Cast:

Ben Affleck (Drew Latham), James Gandolfini (Tom Valco), Christina Applegate (Alicia Valco), Catherine O'Hara (Christine Valco), Josh Zuckerman (Brian Valco), Bill Macy (Doo-Dah/Saul), Jennifer Morrison (Missy Vangilder), and Udo Kier (Heinrich) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After)

Review:

Here's a quick description of how the movie is: It's terrible. It is easy to say this movie is terrible, because it is terrible on a massive scale. The majority of the jokes do not land. The characters aren't ones to root for in any capacity, nor ones we should be following. The story trudges at such a bland pace that borders on being tedious that it makes for not only an unfunny movie but also a boring movie. It isn't so much Affleck's fault as it is the script's fault for being bad. Never once does his character come off as anything other than pathetic or flat out creepy. His pursuit of trying to spend time with people so he isn't alone on Christmas (which means bribing a family, naturally) never really rises to a level where I should actually care. It just comes off as sad, not something to inspire laughs, which is a problem in a movie trying desperately (or for a lack of a better word, lamely) to make you laugh. Gandolfini is somewhat better, in the sense that his character seems easier to go along with. It doesn't mean he's likable, but it does mean that it seems more easier to accept. Applegate doesn't have a bad edge to her either, but she also doesn't really have much characterization either. Her chemistry with Affleck seems more basic than anything else, with no real sort of impact. It's nice to see O'Hara, but her character also isn't really anything of note. When one of the quips of the movie is a Sonny Bono reference (to his skiing accident, no less), it really does say something about just how this movie wants to take itself.

Perhaps it is easy to make a cynical kind of Christmas movie, which this film falls under. These are movies that try to be festive by completely taking the spirit out of what makes movies, and in effect the holiday being covered. There are movies like Elves (#680), which are dumb, but harmless in its attempt at cheer, even with killer elves. Then there are movies like Christmas with the Kranks (#082) and Just Friends (#838), ones with the bare minimum of cheer along with a lack of laughs. But then there are movies like Santa Claus (1959, #309) Jingle All the Way (#491), The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause (#496), Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (#507), Four Christmases (#772) and A Madea Christmas (#872), where it seems that cheer has been replaced with some form of misery, intentional or not. There aren't really any sort of laughs because of the movie, though it can inspire laughs at its expense. And then of course there is Deck the Halls (#497), the ultimate in terrible Christmas movies (for this show), a movie that sucks out the holiday spirit completely with a baseless plot and even more baseless characters. But with all of this, where does Saving Christmas stand? I'd say it falls around the bottom, managing to be a movie bereft of fun while also tremendously tedious as well.

Most of the examples listed actually sound like they could've been made into dramas, in part because they aren't really funny enough to be anything other than sad ideas. In fact, this film actually does have some attempt at drama, particularly at the end, but of course the movies doesn't actually have any sort of buildup nor does it earn any sort of pity. Most of these movies (except Santa Claus Conquers the Martians) deserve pity for being terrible. Here's the bottom line: Skip this movie.

Countdown to 900 Reviews: 10...

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Review #391: The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Cast
Chris Sarandon (Jack Skellington), Danny Elfman (Barrel, and the singing voice of Jack Skellington), Catherine O'Hara (Sally, Shock), William Hickey (Doctor Finklestein), Glenn Shadix (Mayor of Halloween Town), Ken Page (Oogie Boogie), Ed Ivory (Santa Claus), and Paul Reubens (Lock) Directed by Henry Selick (#189 - Coraline)

Review
It's a Tim Burton film without Tim Burton, and yet it manages to be a Halloween and a a Christmas film, along with creating a imaginative world that is also a good enough musical. It is original enough to overcome any "doubts" over a film such as this. Sarandon and Elfman do good, and after a while, the actor and singer combine to just be one single character, and it is excellent. O'Hara does good as well acting, and she is a good pair with Sarandon, which makes for a stronger film. The songs work well, and it helps that animation is top notch, which makes a dynamic film. That, and Oogie Boogie is a good, if not...awesome character. Delectably evil, and yet still with a aura of coolness, which contributes to the dark, but somewhat cheerful tone. It's a film that knows what it wants to do, and it fulfills it to the easiest extent, brilliantly and effectively. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Review #310: Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Brenda Fricker (Bird Lady), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Tim Curry (Mr. Hector), John Heard (Peter McCallister), Eddie Bracken (Mr. Duncan), Rob Schneider (Cedric), Dana Ivey (Mrs. Stone), and Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, #304 - Home Alone)

Review
In a way, I could be generous to this film given that originally I was going to review Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, but I backed out of sheer horror 15 minutes in. But then I realize, this film deserves no special treatment, not one bit. Is it horrible? I'll tell you this much: It won't continue the unintentional unlucky streak ratings in the past reviews (From 8 to 7 to 6 to 5 to 4 to 3), but it isn't as good as Home Alone either. While this film does have some of the Christmas spirit as Home Alone, my problem is that it feels too phoned in. It doesn't feel warming, it feels forced at times. The acting is decent, Culkin does a fine job, and Pesci and Stern do fine as well. The scenery sometimes looks nice, and it does have some decent laughs. But then the main glaring flaw comes in. It's a bit too...cartoonish. It may sound weird to say it, but it really isn't as funny, with one scene involving one of the bandits getting hit in the head with a brick...four times. I may be no doctor (just a reviewer), but I'm pretty sure that might hurt a whole lot more than it looks. They fall down ladders, they get slightly electrocuted (For a few seconds you can see a skeleton face as one gets electrocuted), they get hit with paint cans and more, and etcera and etcera. It goes on a bit much, and it feels weird the second time around, even though some of the gags are repeated and some are funny, it is a slightly weak sequel.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Home Alone.

Review #304: Home Alone.

Cast
Macaulay Culkin (Kevin McCallister), Joe Pesci (Harry Lyme), Daniel Stern (Marv Murchens), Roberts Blossom (Marley), Catherine O'Hara (Kate McCallister), Devin Ratray (Buzz McCallister), John Heard (Peter McCallister), and John Candy (Gus Polinski) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 - Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, #117 - Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, #118 - Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets)

Review
Ah yes, Home Alone. It's fitting to review it right around the Christmas corner, and also fitting to review some actors for the first time here (Gee, that sounds familiar...), which is a good thing. Mostly. And hey, a familiar person involved here as well, John Hughes. (Director and writer of #046 - The Breakfast Club, #207 - Ferris Bueller's Day Off, #249 - Sixteen Candles) So how does this film fare out? It's good...for the most part. I have to admit it is a bit warming to the Christmas spirit, and it does have some good references here and there (With one brief clip on Miracle on 34th Street...which I reviewed previously 5 days ago. Huh.), especially near the end. Ah, yes, what about Macaulay Culkin? (Trying spelling that correctly 5 times) Well, he's not bad (I'd repeat a line I use when mentioning child actors, but I think you know the near standard of child actors already.), he has some moments that give a laugh or two. But my favorite acting performances from this film are from Joe Pesci and Roberts Blossom. I like how Pesci is just so...gnarly offbeat, combined with all that happens to him. As for Blosson, he does giving a small but useful performance that contributes to the film's eager spirit. The rest of the actors do a good job, including Catherine O'Hara and...John Candy? Oh...Yes. The plot is decent, slightly plausible. The traps and comedy are allright, a bit inventive (Even though sometimes I wondered if the traps would lead to really bad injuries...) at times. After over 20 years, this film still has some legs and is enjoyable enough, especially on Christmas. Mostly.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Beetlejuice.

Review #107: Beetlejuice.

Cast
Michael Keaton (Betelgeuse), Alec Baldwin (Adam Maitland), Geena Davis (Barbara Maitland), Winona Ryder (Lydia Deetz), Catherine O'Hara (Delia Deetz), Jeffrey Jones (Charles Deetz), Annie McEnroe (Jane Butterfield), Glenn Shadix (Otho), Sylvia Sidney (Juno), Robert Goulet (Maxie Dean), Maree Cheatham (Sarah Dean), Dick Cavett (Bernard), and Susan Kellermann (Grace) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman )

Review
The film razzles and dazzles with an interesting story that evolves into a fest of effects and comedy, yet still making the film enjoyable. It's fun to watch anytime, especially in the nighttime. Keaton and Ryder stand out with their acting, with Keaton playing Beetlejuice so crazy and so good. Ryder plays the strange and Gothic Lydia (better then other goth girls in other films) who is impressive in this role (doing more roles in later life). The film is likeable and it makes you watch, not being a bore once. This will always be a classic for years and years to come...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.