12 reviews
This starts very well with an original and interesting take on the afterlife. The prospect of two naive but likable ghosts having to learn their haunting skills on the job was delightful. As was the depiction of a monstrous bureaucracy behind the scenes, not far removed from Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
Had the second half proceeded along these lines, this would have been a true classic.
Alas, things start to go downhill with the appearance of the title character, one of the most annoy characters in cinematic history, not made any better by Michael Keaton's mannered performance. One is grateful that he does not put in much of an appearance.
The film then abandons any attempt at intelligence to instead go in for a lot of gimmickry. The reaction of the family to the dinner table haunting could have been made plausible if the haunting had not been so wildly over the top. Nor is it clear where Baldwin and Davies acquire the ability to control humans and create disembodied hands. They do not demonstrate this skill anywhere else.
More overblown (but unfunny) scenes kill any willing suspension of disbelief leading to the rushed and clunking finale.
Had the second half proceeded along these lines, this would have been a true classic.
Alas, things start to go downhill with the appearance of the title character, one of the most annoy characters in cinematic history, not made any better by Michael Keaton's mannered performance. One is grateful that he does not put in much of an appearance.
The film then abandons any attempt at intelligence to instead go in for a lot of gimmickry. The reaction of the family to the dinner table haunting could have been made plausible if the haunting had not been so wildly over the top. Nor is it clear where Baldwin and Davies acquire the ability to control humans and create disembodied hands. They do not demonstrate this skill anywhere else.
More overblown (but unfunny) scenes kill any willing suspension of disbelief leading to the rushed and clunking finale.
- son_of_cheese_messiah
- Jul 8, 2011
- Permalink
When I recently reviewed his 'Big Fish' on this board, I stated that Tim Burton is generally at his best directing quirky, offbeat films such as 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Ed Wood' or 'Big Fish' itself, and less entertaining when he moves into the mainstream. Having since then seen 'Beetlejuice' for the first time, I realize that there are exceptions to that general rule. 'Beetlejuice', a black comedy about the afterlife, is hardly mainstream Hollywood fare, but I also found it far from entertaining.
The central characters, Adam and Barbara Maitland, are a nice-but-wet young couple, who live just outside an idyllic small New England town in one of those huge, rambling weather boarded mansions that looks as though it has been taken straight from an Edward Hopper painting. After they are killed in a road accident, they return to their house as ghosts. The view of life after death in this film is an unusual one, which has little in common with Christian eschatology or with traditional ghost stories. The dead are compelled to return to the house where they lived during their lifetimes; if they attempt to go outside they find themselves in a desert landscape populated by monstrous worms. (This imagery was presumably derived from Frank Herbert's science-fiction novel 'Dune' and the film that was made from it a few years before 'Beetlejuice'). They can, however, contact other departed spirits who can help them cope with the trials of the afterlife by, for example, leaving them a copy of the 'Handbook for the Recently Deceased'.
The Maitlands' main trial takes the form of Charles and Delia Deitz, the pretentious yuppie couple who buy their house. Irritated beyond endurance by this tasteless pair, the Maitlands, attempt to scare them away, but their efforts prove ineffectual because the only member of the family who can see them is their daughter Lydia who, far from being frightened by Adam and Barbara, takes a liking to them and befriends them.
Like another reviewer, I was struck by the thematic similarity to Oscar Wilde's 'The Canterville Ghost', which deals with the attempts of a ghost to frighten away an American family living in his ancestral home. (In that story too the only person to befriend the ghost is the young daughter of the newcomers). Wilde's story, although it has moments of pathos, is also a satire directed against both the traditionalism and snobbery of the British aristocracy (represented by the ghost) and the materialism and brashness of the American nouveaux-riches. 'Beetlejuice' also contains some satirical material, chiefly at the expense of the pretentiously bohemian Deitzes, who redecorate the Maitlands' house in a garish modernistic style and fill it with Delia's abstract sculptures. (It is never explained why a couple with such radically contemporary tastes would actually want to buy a Victorian mansion in the first place). Modern art, however, is a notoriously difficult subject to satirize, largely because it is impossible for the satirist to come up with a concept which is more extreme and exaggerated than the artists' own ideas. Delia's sculptures might look like pretentious tat, but one can see aesthetically similar items in established museums or in galleries bearing price-tags marked in thousands of pounds. Lydia, a follower of the then-fashionable 'Goth' cult, claims that she can see ghosts because she is 'strange and unusual'. The film loses the chance to make the point that the Goth movement, like most teenage cults from the Teddy Boys to grunge, was not so much strange and unusual as an alternative way to be conformist.
Satire, however, is largely abandoned when the title character enters. Despairing of their own ability to scare away the intruders, the Maitlands engage the services of Betelgeuse, a 'bio-exorcist' who specializes in helping ghosts rid their properties of the unwanted living. (Although the film is called 'Beetlejuice' the name of the character is spelt 'Betelgeuse'; I can only presume that the producers wanted to change the spelling to something more user-friendly and failed to realize that we actually see the name written down several times in the film).
From this point on the film becomes an ever-more frantic slapstick comedy as Betelgeuse makes increasingly manic attempts to get rid of the Deitzes. Betelgeuse is played (in bizarre makeup) by Michael Keaton, in one of the most frenetic, over-the-top pieces of acting in the modern cinema. (Even some of Jim Carrey's efforts look restrained by comparison). The other characters fade into the background, and any attempt at a plot degenerates into a series of stunts and gimmicky special effects. The film certainly shows evidence of Tim Burton's vivid visual imagination, but he seems unable bring any discipline to his talents. 'Beetlejuice' is an inventive but disappointing film, even when viewed as a pure comedy, and lacking the wisdom and philosophical insight that Burton was able to bring to 'Edward Scissorhands' or 'Big Fish'. 4/10
The central characters, Adam and Barbara Maitland, are a nice-but-wet young couple, who live just outside an idyllic small New England town in one of those huge, rambling weather boarded mansions that looks as though it has been taken straight from an Edward Hopper painting. After they are killed in a road accident, they return to their house as ghosts. The view of life after death in this film is an unusual one, which has little in common with Christian eschatology or with traditional ghost stories. The dead are compelled to return to the house where they lived during their lifetimes; if they attempt to go outside they find themselves in a desert landscape populated by monstrous worms. (This imagery was presumably derived from Frank Herbert's science-fiction novel 'Dune' and the film that was made from it a few years before 'Beetlejuice'). They can, however, contact other departed spirits who can help them cope with the trials of the afterlife by, for example, leaving them a copy of the 'Handbook for the Recently Deceased'.
The Maitlands' main trial takes the form of Charles and Delia Deitz, the pretentious yuppie couple who buy their house. Irritated beyond endurance by this tasteless pair, the Maitlands, attempt to scare them away, but their efforts prove ineffectual because the only member of the family who can see them is their daughter Lydia who, far from being frightened by Adam and Barbara, takes a liking to them and befriends them.
Like another reviewer, I was struck by the thematic similarity to Oscar Wilde's 'The Canterville Ghost', which deals with the attempts of a ghost to frighten away an American family living in his ancestral home. (In that story too the only person to befriend the ghost is the young daughter of the newcomers). Wilde's story, although it has moments of pathos, is also a satire directed against both the traditionalism and snobbery of the British aristocracy (represented by the ghost) and the materialism and brashness of the American nouveaux-riches. 'Beetlejuice' also contains some satirical material, chiefly at the expense of the pretentiously bohemian Deitzes, who redecorate the Maitlands' house in a garish modernistic style and fill it with Delia's abstract sculptures. (It is never explained why a couple with such radically contemporary tastes would actually want to buy a Victorian mansion in the first place). Modern art, however, is a notoriously difficult subject to satirize, largely because it is impossible for the satirist to come up with a concept which is more extreme and exaggerated than the artists' own ideas. Delia's sculptures might look like pretentious tat, but one can see aesthetically similar items in established museums or in galleries bearing price-tags marked in thousands of pounds. Lydia, a follower of the then-fashionable 'Goth' cult, claims that she can see ghosts because she is 'strange and unusual'. The film loses the chance to make the point that the Goth movement, like most teenage cults from the Teddy Boys to grunge, was not so much strange and unusual as an alternative way to be conformist.
Satire, however, is largely abandoned when the title character enters. Despairing of their own ability to scare away the intruders, the Maitlands engage the services of Betelgeuse, a 'bio-exorcist' who specializes in helping ghosts rid their properties of the unwanted living. (Although the film is called 'Beetlejuice' the name of the character is spelt 'Betelgeuse'; I can only presume that the producers wanted to change the spelling to something more user-friendly and failed to realize that we actually see the name written down several times in the film).
From this point on the film becomes an ever-more frantic slapstick comedy as Betelgeuse makes increasingly manic attempts to get rid of the Deitzes. Betelgeuse is played (in bizarre makeup) by Michael Keaton, in one of the most frenetic, over-the-top pieces of acting in the modern cinema. (Even some of Jim Carrey's efforts look restrained by comparison). The other characters fade into the background, and any attempt at a plot degenerates into a series of stunts and gimmicky special effects. The film certainly shows evidence of Tim Burton's vivid visual imagination, but he seems unable bring any discipline to his talents. 'Beetlejuice' is an inventive but disappointing film, even when viewed as a pure comedy, and lacking the wisdom and philosophical insight that Burton was able to bring to 'Edward Scissorhands' or 'Big Fish'. 4/10
- JamesHitchcock
- Jun 24, 2004
- Permalink
When their attempts to scare away the obnoxious new owners of their home prove less than successful, recently deceased couple Barbara and Adam Maitland (Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin) turn to outrageous 'bio-exorcist' Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) for help.
They played Harry Belafonte's 'Jump in the Line (Shake, Senora)' at my work's Xmas 'do' this year, which made me realise that it's been a whopping 25 years since I last saw Beetlejuice (as well as making me painfully aware that dancing the conga when sober isn't anywhere near as much fun as it is while plastered—next year, I drink!). Sadly, a quarter of a century later, the film isn't anywhere near as much fun as I remembered it to be
There are plenty of creative ideas and director Tim Burton's morbid style is much in evidence, but the film as a whole proves to be far less than the sum of its parts—a series of quirky, macabre, but not very funny gags with little in the way of a decent story to tie it all together. Keaton is also rather irritating as the 'ghost with the most'; thankfully he gets precious little screen-time (despite the film being named after his character), but Winona Ryder, an actress that I simply cannot abide, is sadly present throughout.
They played Harry Belafonte's 'Jump in the Line (Shake, Senora)' at my work's Xmas 'do' this year, which made me realise that it's been a whopping 25 years since I last saw Beetlejuice (as well as making me painfully aware that dancing the conga when sober isn't anywhere near as much fun as it is while plastered—next year, I drink!). Sadly, a quarter of a century later, the film isn't anywhere near as much fun as I remembered it to be
There are plenty of creative ideas and director Tim Burton's morbid style is much in evidence, but the film as a whole proves to be far less than the sum of its parts—a series of quirky, macabre, but not very funny gags with little in the way of a decent story to tie it all together. Keaton is also rather irritating as the 'ghost with the most'; thankfully he gets precious little screen-time (despite the film being named after his character), but Winona Ryder, an actress that I simply cannot abide, is sadly present throughout.
- BA_Harrison
- Dec 21, 2013
- Permalink
- bevanaaron
- Sep 7, 2024
- Permalink
- HannahToucan248
- Oct 9, 2013
- Permalink
POSITIVES:
1) Sylvia Sidney as Juno and Winona Ryder as Lydia are both fantastic 2) Keaton has some funny moments 3) THAT dining table song and dance scene
NEGATIVES:
1) I know it's an 80s film but the special effects look terrible today 2) Up until they meet Beetlejuice the film is boring 3) the entire dining table get possessed and start singing and dancing but don't believe there's ghosts in the house?! Idiots?! 4) Burton excels at making annoying characters but that's not a good thing!! 5) The film's rules about what ghosts can and can't do make zero sense
1) Sylvia Sidney as Juno and Winona Ryder as Lydia are both fantastic 2) Keaton has some funny moments 3) THAT dining table song and dance scene
NEGATIVES:
1) I know it's an 80s film but the special effects look terrible today 2) Up until they meet Beetlejuice the film is boring 3) the entire dining table get possessed and start singing and dancing but don't believe there's ghosts in the house?! Idiots?! 4) Burton excels at making annoying characters but that's not a good thing!! 5) The film's rules about what ghosts can and can't do make zero sense
- DanLawson146
- May 3, 2020
- Permalink
Don't really se why this would be a movie to recommend when there is several other Halloweencoms that I would rather watch. It tries to fill the gap between being a "scary" movie while having a comic aspect, it doesn't really work. The movie takes itself a bit over its head by introducing to many things in the beginning without really following them up in the end. The personalities are pretty unoriginal except Tim Burtons BeetleJuice witch gets introduced way to soon (in the midpoint).
If I were to call out something good would it probably be the costume designs but more than that was it pretty boring.
If I were to call out something good would it probably be the costume designs but more than that was it pretty boring.
- Felix-Wackenhuth
- Nov 18, 2024
- Permalink
Beetlejuice is so ridiculously over the top that it makes Batman Returns look serious, I love that film and Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors ever but what happened here? This is a terribly confusing movie with ridiculous special effects and it never made me laugh once, the only great part was Michael Keaton since he was fantastic as Beetlejuice but I just didn't enjoy it and couldn't finish it.
I'm gonna give Beetlejuice a D+
I'm gonna give Beetlejuice a D+
- asherrbh_15
- Apr 9, 2022
- Permalink
I saw this in the theater almost 20 years ago with my former skank girlfriend and a friend of mine that I wish never happened, so that may have affected me negatively. The performance of Michael Keaton in a completely simple movie like Night Shift was wonderful. His performance in Clean and Sober is one of the best. In fact, although he is not my favorite, Michael Keaton is in the top 10 of all time. However, his performance, and that of the other utterly forgettable actors in this movie, leaves me bewildered. Maybe I just didn't get it, or maybe this was a horrible movie. It moved to fast, and the dialogue was unintelligible. To make a long story short, it was boring.
- toddrandall68
- Mar 12, 2006
- Permalink
- Always10Plus
- Mar 28, 2020
- Permalink
A Tim Burton film would never be bad to me .. because that man has a unique style of his own .. Best director who could combine the fantasy with comedy and good drama .. So, to me .. Burton is my beloved director .. So, I decided to see that movie .. and the idea of the film was not bad at all but the film needs graphical staffs and high visual effects .. and those things was so bad in the film .. SO, the film would be fantastic if they waited for 2 or 5 years when the visual effects become more developed .. the actors or we should say the acting .. the acting was a block spot also .. some actors were bloody awful .. and others were not so bad .. So, to me .. the film was not bad but need to be delayed a couple of years .
Now the second part of this movie is being shown in the cinema, and the first part was released in 1988. Of course, I didn't see this movie as a child, and I learned about it about a year ago, but I watched it last night, and now I'm going to analyze it. The plot itself, about death, transmigration of souls, and so on, is very interesting, but unfortunately, it is poorly realized. They don't show us this, they show us the whole movie, except for the unfunny humor, and the Beatles, of which they show very little, and the movie is called Beatles. Anyway, I'll cut to the chase and analyze the movie.
In my opinion, Tim Burton's direction here is very bad, so with a small budget everything looks almost high-quality, but the movie is not worth watching. The script of the movie is very bad, and as I have already written, they don't explain much, they just throw us into the fire. And the ending is also not surprising, and there is not even a normal ending. The message has the same problems. But I have no complaints about the acting and the selection of actors, they played perfectly.
The protagonists, the married couple Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, are not exactly interesting characters, and there is no logic in their actions. The villains and the supporting cast are also not quite memorable, I can only say about the hilarious Michael Keaton who played Beatlejuice, and about the heroine Winona Ryder, and she will be remembered for her stupid hairstyle.
Dynamism 🤔, no and no again, the movie needs 1 hour of the movie to make everything more dynamic. The movie is boring and I definitely won't want to watch it again. The editing and cinematography are great, the special effects and makeup look good for those years, but the graphics in the movie are very bad. Although there is drama in the movie, I didn't care about the characters. And the humor is not very funny. The logic and intrigue are also not very good.
I won't recommend the movie to you, I didn't like the movie at all, I know maybe someone else did, but not me. My rating for the movie is 4/10, it's okay. I'll watch the second part, but I don't want to, if the movie is really interesting and good, I'll write about it, and if not, I won't. I'll also add that Beetlejuice translates as Beetle Juice, if anyone is interested.
In my opinion, Tim Burton's direction here is very bad, so with a small budget everything looks almost high-quality, but the movie is not worth watching. The script of the movie is very bad, and as I have already written, they don't explain much, they just throw us into the fire. And the ending is also not surprising, and there is not even a normal ending. The message has the same problems. But I have no complaints about the acting and the selection of actors, they played perfectly.
The protagonists, the married couple Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis, are not exactly interesting characters, and there is no logic in their actions. The villains and the supporting cast are also not quite memorable, I can only say about the hilarious Michael Keaton who played Beatlejuice, and about the heroine Winona Ryder, and she will be remembered for her stupid hairstyle.
Dynamism 🤔, no and no again, the movie needs 1 hour of the movie to make everything more dynamic. The movie is boring and I definitely won't want to watch it again. The editing and cinematography are great, the special effects and makeup look good for those years, but the graphics in the movie are very bad. Although there is drama in the movie, I didn't care about the characters. And the humor is not very funny. The logic and intrigue are also not very good.
I won't recommend the movie to you, I didn't like the movie at all, I know maybe someone else did, but not me. My rating for the movie is 4/10, it's okay. I'll watch the second part, but I don't want to, if the movie is really interesting and good, I'll write about it, and if not, I won't. I'll also add that Beetlejuice translates as Beetle Juice, if anyone is interested.