Judge James is James David Heard, local editor of the Victoria Advocate. In this column, I share my opinions on all things entertainment, from movies to video games and everything in between. Email your topic ideas to James at jherd@vicad.com or call 361-574-1285.
When I visited my mother one weekend, she asked me something I never expected.
“Do you want to see Beetlejuice?” she asked. After taking some time to think about it, I realized something that really surprised me, even though I’m a self-proclaimed fan of Tim Burton’s aesthetic.
I didn’t actually watch the original “Beetlejuice.” I know; you’re justified in booing me for that, but you can thank my mom for insisting that I watch the original movie before seeing the sequel. There we ordered food and watched a movie starring a young Michael Keaton about to marry a much younger Winona Ryder. Just kidding. There is a continuation to the plot of 1988’s “Beetlejuice,” but it is not the purpose of this column to explain the nuances of the plot summary.
No, my purpose here is to tell you whether you should go see the recently released sequel, the aptly named Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.
Simply put, if you liked the first movie, it’s pretty much the same. I don’t think this sequel reinvents the wheel, but it really didn’t need to. The film once again follows Lydia Dietz (Winona Ryder) as she taps into her natural ability to see and talk to spirits. She is a television personality who is currently “dating” producer Rory (Justin Theroux). The plot really kicks into gear when Lydia receives word that her father Charles (played by Jeffrey Jones, for good reason) has been killed by a shark.
So Lydia, her stepmother Delia (Catherine O’Hara), and her daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega) return to the infamous Dietz mansion to sort out Charles’ problems. Of course, that leads to an all-new shenanigan involving Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton), who spends the entire movie ghosting (pun intended) his ex-wife Delores (Monica Bellucci) while once again He tries to marry Lydia.
Is “Beetlejuice” a franchise that’s still relevant almost 40 years after its first version? I think so. I would go so far as to say that “Beetlejuice” Beetlejuice acts as a soft reboot of the series, inheriting many of the same ideas as its predecessor while also allowing for nostalgic callbacks for fans of the original.
Needless to say, I enjoyed the sparing use of the title character here. In fact, before the film’s release, Keaton told GQ that, ironically, drinking too much Beetlejuice is bad. That’s not to say this character isn’t featured enough in the movie, but like in the first film, he doesn’t really become an important element until later on, when Astrid is kidnapped and Lydia is sent to him. It’s only when you have no choice but to ask for help.
Additionally, this latest afterlife adventure gives the creative team a chance to revisit some of the visual ideas and gags from the first film, but this time with enhanced CGI and effects. I’m happy to report that sandworms aren’t surreal. In fact, they look almost identical to the original sandworms, but it’s clear that more care and attention has been taken to make them look crisper and cleaner.
The list is endless, but I hope you will go and see Beetlejuice for yourself. Even though it’s basically a remake that enhances and expands on the original, I really enjoyed it.
Let’s start the countdown to the release of Beetlejuice in 2060, starring 109-year-old Keaton, 88-year-old Ryder, and 58-year-old Ortega. It makes sense that they would complete the trilogy.
James David Herd is the local editor of the Victoria Advocate. James is a former associate and copy editor. Contact jherd@vicad.com or 361-574-1285.