Illustration by Wynter Somera

I am not a fan of the film “Beetlejuice” (1988). I am, however, a fan of originality and charm, which puts the film in my good graces. After seeing the sequel, I can say with certainty that “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” (2024) is so, so much worse than its predecessor.

The film follows the newest generation of the Deetz family, with Winona Ryder stepping back into her iconic role of Lydia Deetz — now the mother of her own troublesome, black sheep daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega). Upon the news of patriarch Charles Deetz’s passing (portrayed by Jeffery Jones in the original, which I trust is why he is killed off so unceremoniously), the family reunites in the town of Winter River once more. 

Simultaneously, Michael Keaton and his character Betelgeuse, the sleazy demon, both return as Betelgeuse is still holding onto the possibility of reuniting with his once-child bride (gross). His hopes may be dashed when his first wife, Delores (Monica Belluci), violently reappears in the afterlife, looking for vengeance. 

Up in the land of the living, the Deetz girls’ own romantic lives take some dramatic turns, as Lydia’s new and overbearing boyfriend Rory (Justin Theroux) becomes new and overbearing fiance — at Charles’ wake — and Astrid starts meeting up with Jeremy (Arthur Conti), a charming neighborhood boy, later revealed to be a murderous ghost. In the end, both of these men are outed as liars and cheats, attempting to take advantage of the hurt women.

 In a whirlwind of a finale, Betelgeuse gets his second chance at marrying Lydia in place of Rory, only to be interrupted by Delores and the ghost police. Fortunately for the Deetz girls, both forces are defeated rather swiftly, only for Lydia to take up her power and send him back into the afterlife. 

From the opening scene, the movie takes on a confusing and indecisive pace, moving from one plot point to the next with little time for the audience to reconcile new events with those of the original film. Scenes dash from the living world plotlines to the afterlife with little rhyme or reason, and the overload of information within each scene makes it nearly impossible to follow.

Frustratingly, whatever bits of information that are registered are forgotten by the film itself, or progress in a strange direction. One plot line involves Astrid’s deceased father whose ghost Lydia is unable to see, despite being a medium, resulting in her daughter’s skepticism and growing resentment towards her. Astrid reveals to Jeremy that her father disappeared on a South American boat trip and was declared deceased subsequently, leading to my assumption that her father was simply missing, and not actually dead. But no, he is in fact dead, he’s just a worker in the afterlife, and he unceremoniously stumbles upon his daughter there. The movie doesn’t keep the audience on their toes; it’s shooting at their feet and watching them dance and break their ankles. 

Much of the dialogue is flat-out unnecessary, and the implicit themes only get as nuanced as a TikTok catchphrase. The idea that toxic relationships, particularly those that involve taking advantage of vulnerable women, are all too common across generations is a meritable conceit, but I wish the film would do more to illustrate that than simply having an abuser look directly into the camera and say it (I’m not joking, in the finale, Rory says this, near verbatim).  

The only saving graces of this movie for me were the design and performances. Lydia maintains her iconic spiky bangs, and although her wardrobe is updated to a more mature and modern selection, she is still recognizable as the goth icon we all know and love. The afterlife — from the ghosts to the decrepit dry cleaning shop — lived up to the spooky expectations set up by the original’s creativity. Delores’ black wedding dress and stapled face created a really memorable and enjoyable character, all the more impressive since she is a 2024 original. 

Some performance standouts include Catherine O’Hara reprising her role as Delia with a genuinely enjoyable presence and impeccable comedic timing, as well as chemistry with the rest of the cast; and of course, Michael Keaton, who still channels the same raunchy but charming Betelgeuse energy. 

Unfortunately, I found myself quite disappointed with Ryder’s performance as Lydia. I felt like the reprisal generated nothing new for the beloved character, and her presence throughout most of the film felt confused and tired. 

“Confused and tired” is how I would describe “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” in a nutshell. It is an uninspired and lazy cash-grab sequel produced solely for profiting off of nostalgia — a trend that has been plaguing Hollywood for years (lest we forget its slightly more hated cousin, the cash-grab remake). It doesn’t care about what it has to say; it doesn’t care about continuing the world-building or characters; it cares about getting money from everyone who loved the original movie. Ka-ching!