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.

X (2022).

Review #2133: X.

Cast: 

Mia Goth (Maxine / Pearl), Jenna Ortega (Lorraine Day), Brittany Snow (Bobby-Lynne Parker), Scott Mescudi (Jackson Hole), Martin Henderson (Wayne Gilroy), Owen Campbell (RJ Nichols), Stephen Ure (Howard), Simon Prast (the televangelist), and James Gaylyn (Sheriff Dentler) Written and Directed by Ti West (#1893 - Pearl)

Review: 

It's the damndest thing. I found myself not having enough time to pick out this film when it came out in the month of March in 2022, but when it came to Pearl, billed as "An X-traordinary Origin Story" (as filmed on the same sets in New Zealand as this film) released in the latter days of September of that same year, I had all of the curiosity necessary to use it as a good way to start a month of horror. So, here I am basically trying to quantify my blunder in not just watching this film when it was new and wondering just how dumb I was in not picking it earlier. If you didn't already know, West had made a name for himself with a steady collection of horror features that started with The Roost (2005). This is his eighth feature film and just like the rest of them, he also wrote and edited the film himself. Sometime in the near future will be a sequel called MaXXXine, as already mentioned for those who were lucky enough to have seen Pearl, which will feature West and Goth again as one would hope makes a proper horror trilogy. 

Spoiler: well, I'm an idiot, I should've watched X back then. What better way to touch upon both a look into the world of X-ratedness that comes in porn and horror than a film like this? Sure, you might find something a bit familiar here with, say, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974). Both were at a crossroads as the 1970s were about to end, and the advent of video (with stuff such as Debbie Does Dallas, released in 1978) was a big reason for that, because now one could find a market interest in something that wanted to see flesh in their own homes. In other words, one could get away with doing something for themselves for others without having to go with Hollywood or through those proper channels, which could be places such as say, a farm in Houston. It has an amusing pace to it beyond the grisly elements that come in both the bloodshed along with the cries for being past one's youth that make for a really enjoyable time. It is craftsmanship of the best kind when it comes to the fear that comes in both delusional visitors and in becoming old, complete with prosthetics used to make a film that isn't just riding on CG-mush. When it comes to showcase, it goes doubly for Goth, who plays two roles that work in the view of people who desire a life for themselves filled with what they look like on the inside and out (whether that is a cocaine-sniffing actress or someone who obviously saw plenty in the 1920s when it comes to youth). This desperation makes for some curious scenes, such as their first scene together (after one is seen watching the other skinny-dipping in a pool that narrowly misses an alligator, anyway) that is uncomfortable in dreary enjoyment for one looking upon a younger one. The filming of the nudie scenes is particularly interesting when it comes to trying to construct something both pleasing and fitting to what looks and sounds right for both cameraman and cast undergoing it all that works for Parker and Mescudi (best known as Kid Cudi) for timing in performances. Henderson makes a worthy minor note in would-be film huckster, which compares pretty well when you think about Campbell and Ortega reacting to the idea of being involved more than just behind the camera (consider that reaction from the former in the aftermath carefully). It is the dynamic of Ure and Goth, however, that drives the film to where it must go, because even love must go hand in hand with sadism when it comes to helping others realize their desires, which is probably more unsettling than anything, at least when compared to the blood and gore (or the televangelist that occasionally appears on television, for those who don't care to hear of hucksters of the religious kind). One could actually feel bad for this character in the basic sense of aging, because, well, no one can be as young and free as they want to be forever, no matter what they may pretend to think (whether with others or by themselves, although the lonely usually die faster anyway). I especially like the ending for the subversion of the usual final person tropes when it comes to just wanting what they want, an ideal representation of "F you, got mine" if there ever was one. As a ballad of sex and violence with lingering degrees of uncomfortable styling, it makes for a highly interesting start to a horror series I really did not see coming (X and Pearl may actually be neck-and-neck with each other when it comes to how each do their own pastiche of a certain genre). Far from just a tribute or just an excuse to show skin and gore, this is the kind of film fit for its era when it comes to delivering unsettling entertainment with little to no false notes detected in the best of ways possible.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

I hope you folks have enjoyed this procession of October in Horror films (with one exception) in this historic month. I wanted to do a month packed with a handful of the usual names you might expect from horror, whether that meant a Vincent Price film or a John Carpenter effort and put them all together. There were plenty of films considered that didn't make the cut that I'm sure could be covered next October...or with Halloween The Week After, Year Five.