The original “Beetlejuice,” Tim Burton’s eccentric and oftentimes disturbing 1988 film, released to good – if not stellar – reviews. Despite some gruesome elements, the movie established itself as a classic family movie.

“Beetlejuice Beetlejuice,” which was released on Sept. 6, 2024, a sequel 36 years in the making, had big shoes to fill, and it largely fails to live up to the accolades of the original.

I don’t have to say three times how beloved “Beetlejuice” was by audiences globally. In an era where art was becoming more standardized and many practical effects were being digitized, Burton stuck with his vision of idiosyncrasy and practical effects. The movie stayed true to itself and the quality of the movie attests to his success. There was one main caveat to this excellence, though: Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI). Sandworms, for an example, seemed unintentionally poor in quality and ruined the immersion of the original. 

The issue of poor CGI is something the second movie addresses. Practical effects are on full display, and are even more impressive this time around when they do appear. However, the second film uses less practical effects than the first. While this isn’t ideal in my opinion, the improved quality of the CGI makes up for the lack of practical effects. 

The first Beetlejuice, while not acclaimed for its story, did have its tender moments and payoffs. The story very clearly served as a platform for the film’s comedic elements, but it still served its purpose well. 

The sequel fails to meet any standard for the narrative that were set by the original. The film had so many contrasting narratives and goals, and they ultimately failed to converge in any meaningful way. There were three main plotlines happening throughout the movie –  Astrid Deetz (Jenna Ortega) trying to take back her soul from an evil ghost, Beetlejuice (Michael Keaton) dealing with an evil ex, and Lydia Deetz (Winona Ryder) dealing with family issues. The film cuts between these three plot threads, making the audience think they will eventually intersect into a meaningful climax: they don’t. The climax of the film more so conveniently brings all the characters into one place for incredibly contrived reasons. 

The first movie, at its core, is a comedy. Its essence lies in the well timed and placed jokes. The comedy is often very blunt and kind of slap-stick – very reminiscent of its time. The second movie is definitely more contemporary, with its comedy manifesting more through clever one lines and more subtle jokes.

Ultimately, both movies have their own strengths and weaknesses. The first movie has a stronger narrative, but the second excels more in its comedic elements, much to the detriment of the story. If, and only if you’re a fan of the first movie, the second is worth watching. Make sure to lower your expectations from the first movie a bit – the story was worse but other aspects of the film got better. I would give it a 6.5 out of possible 10 stars – good but not great.