Few films carve out a niche quite like Beetlejuice did when it premiered in 1988: a dark comedy combining gothic visuals, supernatural mischief, and off-kilter humour under the direction of Tim Burton. Thirty-six years later, the long-anticipated sequel Beetlejuice arrived, seeking to recapture the magic of the original while expanding its world. In this article, I’ll examine both films — how they were received, what works (and what doesn’t), why the original endures, and how the sequel stacks up.
The Original (1988) – A Cult Classic Emerges
Premise & Style
Beetlejuice begins as a relatively straightforward ghost story: a happily married couple (Adam and Barbara Maitland) die in a bizarre accident and attempt to haunt their former home. They then discover that the new occupants, the Deetz family (led by Catherine O’Hara and Jeffrey Jones), are remodeling the house. To scare them off, the Maitlands enlist the help of the trouble-making “bio-exorcist” Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton) — better known as “Beetlejuice”. The film is dripping in Burton’s signature style: bold, cartoonish, weird and enchanting. As one review puts it: “It’s weird and unsettling, but everything that’s presented as odd tends to be consciously made mundane.” Screen Rant+2Loud And Clear Reviews+2
Critical Reception
At the time and in retrospect, Beetlejuice earned mostly positive reviews. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds high approval, with critics praising its visual imagination and Keaton’s wild performance. rottentomatoes.com+2Wikipedia+2 Roger Ebert gave it 2 out of 4 stars, calling it “so much fun that I ignore the many flaws,” while noting that once the film shifts to gimmicks, the character development suffers. Roger Ebert
Key strengths identified by reviewers include:
- A rich, inventive afterlife/demon world and set design. Horror Press+1
- Michael Keaton’s performance as Beetlejuice — manic, unhinged, unforgettable. rottentomatoes.com+1
- Burton’s blend of comedy, horror, and whimsy makes the film accessible while still strange. The Guardian+1
However, there were criticisms:
- A thin narrative: the story eventually became more about special effects and set-pieces than character. Roger Ebert
- A tonal shift: opening scenes are charming and odd, later segments feel more chaotic. Roger Ebert
Legacy & Why It Works
What makes Beetlejuice still worth watching today? A few observations:
- The aesthetics: built pre-CGI, with tactile sets, puppets, and practical effects, give it an authentic, “model-world” feel. Vox+1
- Its humour/horror balance: it doesn’t lean too deeply into horror; rather, it uses supernatural framing to explore comedy, absurdity, and even the after-life bureaucracy. Screen Rant+1
- Memorable moments: from the “Shake, Señora” dance sequence to the sand-worm and bureaucratic waiting-room for ghosts — moments that stick. Pitchfork
All of this combined gives the film a lasting cult status. As one reviewer wrote: “Delightfully odd in a way I am not sure you could capture today.” TL;DR Movie Reviews and Analysis
The Sequel (2024) – A Legacy Returns
Premise & Intent
Beetlejuice picks up decades later. The familiar characters return (Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice, Winona Ryder as Lydia Deetz, Catherine O’Hara as Delia Deetz) alongside new additions (Jenna Ortega as Lydia’s daughter, Astrid, Monica Bellucci, Willem Dafoe, Justin Theroux). Keith & the Movies+1 The idea: revisit the ghostly world, build on nostalgia, inject fresh faces and stories, and deliver a visual, comedic spectacle befitting Burton’s world.
Critical Reception
Reviews for the sequel have been more mixed compared to the original. According to Rotten Tomatoes consensus: “Michael Keaton’s devious poltergeist still has plenty of juice… a fun time.” rottentomatoes.com+1 But deeper reading shows both praise and caveats:
Strengths identified:
- Visual spectacle, practical effects, puppetry and animatronics that evoke old-school Burton magic. megaphone.southwestern.edu+1
- Strong cast and nostalgia factor: seeing the original actors back, plus the new generation. People.com
- A lively tone: reviewers noted that when the film leans into its “live-action cartoon” nature, it succeeds. megaphone.southwestern.edu
Criticisms:
- The plot feels overstuffed: many storylines, underdeveloped characters, and less focus on tight narrative. The Slate+1
- Lacks the heart and originality of the first: while visually fun, it sometimes feels more like fan service than a bold new vision. Kabooooom! +1
- Some tonal inconsistency: critics say it tries too hard, or spreads itselftoo thin. AVForums
Commercial & Cultural Notes
Beyond reviews, the sequel generated interesting industry notes: The budget was reportedly cut by ~US$50 million amid studio concerns. Business Insider. Its release tapped into younger audiences via stars like Jenna Ortega and Winona Ryder, blending nostalgia with fresh appeal. Vox The reviews suggest that the film succeeds most when it leans into what made the original special — but struggles when it simply becomes louder or busier.
Side-by-Side: Original Vs. Sequel
Here’s a comparative breakdown across key dimensions:
| Dimension | 1988 Original | 2024 Sequel |
| Tone / Style | Quirky, gothic-fun, inventive, playful weirdness. The Guardian+1 | Flashy, nostalgic, high-energy, more visual spectacle. megaphone.southwestern.edu+1 |
| Story / Characters | Simple premise, few main characters, focus on mood & humour. Some narrative thinness. Roger Ebert+1 | More characters, interwoven storylines, a new generation, more ambition but also dilution. The Slate+1 |
| Visuals & Effects | Practical effects, model sets, handmade aesthetics, grounded weirdness. Vox+1 | Upscaled effects, animatronics, puppetry, and larger scale; much visual ambition. megaphone.southwestern.edu |
| Performance / Cast | Michael Keaton steals scenes; strong ensemble. rottentomatoes.com+1 | Keaton returns; newcomers bring energy; nostalgia is strong. People.com |
| Nostalgia Factor | Original source of nostalgia. | Sequel built on nostalgia; benefit and burden. |
| Criticisms | Thin plot, maybe too reliant on set-pieces. | Overstuffed plot, emphasis on spectacle > heart. |
| Legacy | Cult status; still cited as one of Burton’s best. Loud And Clear Reviews+1 | Mixed reviews: fun for fans, but not quite the same impact. NERDBOT+1 |
In-Depth: What Works & What Doesn’t
What Works
- Character of Beetlejuice: In both films, the character is a force of nature. Keaton embraces the chaos, the humour, the unpredictability. His presence elevates both films.
- Visual Imagination: Both films succeed most when they allow the bizarre, the gothic, and the surreal to flourish. In the original, that meant model sets and off-kilter humour; in the sequel, it meant embracing practical effects and a “live-action cartoon” spirit.
- Tonally Unique: Few films merge ghost stories, black comedy, and cartoonish surrealism the way these films do. That gives them a distinct voice and enduring appeal.
What Doesn’t
- Thin storytelling: The original’s narrative simplicity is both a strength and a weakness — it allows for style, but characters sometimes plateau. The sequel’s ambition adds complexity, but also results in some underdevelopment.
- Over-reliance on nostalgia: The sequel sometimes leans heavily on referencing the first film, more than forging its own independent identity. The risk: being derivative rather than innovative.
- Audience expectations: Part of the magic of the 1988 version was its surprise value — you didn’t know exactly what you were getting. The sequel knows what we expect, and tries both to satisfy and surprise — a tougher challenge.
Why the Original Still Matters, and Why the Sequel Matters Too
The Original’s Enduring Value
Why Beetlejuice (1988) remains relevant: because it dares to be weird, to lean into the off-beat, to blend humour and horror in a mainstream-accessible way. It shows that a ghost story doesn’t need to be scary; it can be comic, satirical, playful. The world it builds — the bureaucracy of the dead, the afterlife waiting room, the monstrous sand-worm — still feels fresh. In the age of CGI, the tactile quality of its effects is a treat. As one reviewer said: “There’s never been a movie afterlife quite like this.” Roger Ebert+1
The Sequel’s Reason for Being
Why now? Why revisit this world? Beetlejuice Beetlejuice arrives at a time when legacy sequels abound, and yet the challenge is to justify its existence. In many cases, it succeeds by giving fans what they want: the return of familiar faces, the aesthetic of the original, and a new generation to carry the torch. It also gives younger audiences a chance to experience the world of Beetlejuice. While it may not reach the same heights of originality, it has value as a fun, ambitious piece — especially when it leans into its strengths. As a reviewer stated: it’s “fun in direct proportion to how wanton and tossed-off it seems.” Roger Ebert
Final Verdict & Viewing Recommendations
Verdict
- Beetlejuice (1988): A must-watch if you appreciate offbeat comedy, gothic fantasy, and the weird work of Tim Burton. It shows how style and character can outweigh narrative flaws. Highly recommended.
- Beetlejuice Beetlejuice (2024): Recommended for fans of the original, or those who enjoy visually ambitious fantasy-comedy. But temper expectations: it’s fun and stylish but doesn’t quite replicate the inventive surprise of the original.
For Different Kinds of Viewers
- If you’re new to the world of Beetlejuice, start with the 1988 film. Its simplicity and freshness make it a better gateway.
- If you loved the original and want more: Watch the 2024 sequel. Enjoy the nostalgia, the updated visuals, and the new characters — but hold reasonable expectations.
- If you focus primarily on story/character over style, you may find both films enjoyable for visuals, but less satisfying in narrative. The original is leaner and more self-contained; the sequel is sprawling and ambitious.
Conclusion
The tale of Beetlejuice is one of lasting weirdness meeting the challenge of revival. The original film stands as a testament to Tim Burton’s imaginative power, Michael Keaton’s performance, and the creative possibilities of dark-comedy fantasy. The sequel, Beetlejuice, brings back the ghost with the most and his world for a new generation — achieving much in terms of spectacle and homage, less so in terms of original story momentum.
In the end, both films have their place: the first as a landmark, the second as a fun but more uneven continuation. Whether you’re revisiting the Maitlands’ haunting or heading back into the ghost-busting business of Deetz and company, there’s plenty to enjoy — just remember: sometimes saying the name three times brings back more than you bargain for.
