Yes, the much-anticipated sequel to Beetlejuice made $110 million on its opening weekend, but the question remains—was it any good?
On the one hand, they brought back Michael Keaton and Winona Ryder, which boded well. On the other hand, it’s been an incredible 36 years since the last installment in the series. As I watched the trailers, one thing that gave me hope for the movie was Tim Burton returning as director. Holding onto that hope, I went to see Beetlejuice 2 in theaters. The result? The most thoroughly mixed bag of my movie-watching career.
Let’s start with the plot, which was actually quite original: it would have been easy to just remake the first movie, now a cult classic, and break the box office with minimal effort. Instead, it seems like Burton was genuinely trying to add something to the franchise and to the world of Beetlejuice in general.
That said, it was pretty wild. If you thought the first one had perhaps too many ghosts in it, or if you have a sensitive stomach, maybe don’t see this movie. Also – and I’m not saying this to be mean – but this movie seems like it was desperately trying to get to two hours of runtime and just couldn’t do it. The high number of filler scenes was a stark contrast from the first movie. It’s hard to complain too much though, as a lot of it was pretty funny. So, does Beetlejuice Beetlejuice deserve to dominate the box office? First of all, the competition wasn’t all that steep. It’s not like Avatar 3 came out the same weekend. Even so, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice was a nostalgic reminder of a movie and a world that many of us loved. It looked good, Michael Keaton was great, and the zany atmosphere of the original was lovingly replicated. If you’ve got a few hours free, I doubt you’d regret watching it.
The Axe 