Back in the late 1980's, a young and courageous filmmaker by the name of Tim Burton introduced the world to the character of Beetlejuice, a mischievous and morally-questioned deceased male from god-knows-what century who's only intention is to be freed back into the land of the living, and cause some mayhem along the way.
From that moment on, the character of Beetlejuice would become an icon throughout the history of cinema, as well as being listed as one of the most, if not the most, recognisable and memorable role of Michael Keaton's career.
Flash forward a mere thirty-six years later and fans of the original who probably saw it for the first time whilst they were still wearing nappies, are provided with the privilege of seeing Keaton's iconic portrayal of Beetlejuice brought to the big screen once more through Tim Burton's 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice'.
The sequel to Burton's 1988 cult-classic can be looked at by filmlovers all around the world in a variety of ways. Is it just another example of something that was once original and interesting being brought back to life in a desperate attempt to save cinema? Or is this genuinely a necessary and highly sought-after sequel that surpasses it's predecessor whilst also honouring it in a number of ways?
The short answer is... it's a mixture of both.
Was a 'Beetlejuice' sequel required? No.
Is it one of many modern day attempts at reviving a fan favourite movie due to a lack of originality throughout the industry? Yes.
Does it however possess many unique and interesting qualities that allow it to surpass the standards set by the original? Certainly.
The selection of films showing at cinemas these days are becoming exhausted with an intense number of remakes and sequels. And very few of them are actually better than their original source material? But is 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' an example of this? Definitely not.
That's right, it has been said. 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice' is in fact a better movie than it's predecessor. And there are a number of reasons why.
Pushing aside obvious factors such as an inflated budget and a deflated use of cheap and dainty practical effects (although they were impressive at the time), the main thing that this film has going for it seems to be it's surprisingly entertaining and intriguing storyline.
Although the original film is a classic for many reasons, it's storyline isn't one of them. And although both of these movies will be remembered because of the comedic brilliance that Keaton serves on a plate for our audience members, it can't go left unsaid that the storyline for the second of these two films is far superior. As well as includes a plot twist that you are unlikely to see coming.
The addition of new and original characters to this film does nothing for the movie except bode extremely well in it's favour. New and unfamiliar faces such as Jenna Ortega's 'Astrid Deetz', Monica Bellucci's 'Delores' and Willem Dafoe's 'Wolf Jackson' certainly turn up the dial on the entertainment factor for this movie.
But the winner of the award for most interesting newcomer of the year simply has to go to Justin Theroux's portrayal of 'Rory', the self-centred and docile love interest of Winona Ryder's 'Lydia Deetz'.
This film is essentially everything that a fan of the original can come to expect from a sequel that comes out thirty-six years later than it's predecessor. Keaton is back to hitting his comedic highs that he set back in '88. The production and costume design is all too familiar, paying homage to the work and craftsmanship that took place all those years ago. And the new and interesting addition of several characters play a huge role in allowing this film to set new highs to the story of 'Beetlejuice'.
The conclusion of this film now only begs one question...
Can fans now expect to see a 'Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetle*****'?
PrimeTime Films Score: C+
Comments