TSago70

I agree with a lot of the positive and negative reviews on here. I think this film has both elements.

I have a soft spot for low-budget indie horror. Beezel definitely gives that feel. The story spans nearly 50 years (beginning in 1966), but the entire film gives a 70's vibe... even in 2013.

I love a retro horror film. But doing the retro thing seems to be the go-to with a lot of horror films lately... especially set in 70's or 80's. It works when it's part of the plot. But a lot of horror filmmakers seem to use this throwback style of filmmaking even when it's not really relevant to the plot.

The story is told in 4 different chapters, each with different characters. The first 3 build up like a slow burn, each giving us a closer glimpse of the horror that dwells in the cellar of a house... but doesn't give us much more than that. The less is more thing worked for me. It made those glimpses scarier.

By the time Beezel gets to its last (and longest) chapter, it kinda fizzles out into a plot that feels stale... and the characters aren't very likable, which didn't really make me care about what happened to them.

Part of me would've liked to have learned more of the backstory/origin of the evil thing in the cellar. But another part me appreciated the ambiguity. Maybe we'll learn more if there's a sequel.

There are die-hard fans of thrillers (and horror) who, understandably, will have issues with this film...

First: Why remake it? Just see the original.

Second: Why make changes?

But it's okay for die-hard thriller/horror fans to have different tastes... because this fan base is diverse. For example, some prefer a slow burn with not a lot of graphic violence, some prefer more action and cool kills, and some like both. I fall into the both category.

I really appreciated watching the original in 2022, and I'm glad I watched it without knowing any of the plot in advance. I recommended it to many people. But, unlike most thrillers and horror films, I didn't feel like seeing it more than once. I guess I didn't want to feel that again. But I appreciate that I felt what I felt. I attribute that to good filmmaking.

I had a feeling this American version was going to go another way. And I admit, I'm glad they did... because it separated itself from the original. It doesn't take away anything from the Dutch version. In fact, I think it's kinda cool that there are two versions of an interesting premise... and both are worth seeing.

James McAvoy's performance alone is reason enough to see it. He's so entertaining to watch. In fact, I think he gives the character even more levels than the original actor. But I wasn't expecting to be as impressed with Mackenzie Davis's performance as I was. You believe everything she's feeling... and I'm glad I got a chance to see what this character was capable of.

I remember reading reviews of the original film with audiences (understandably) expressing their frustration with the choices two of the main characters made. In a way, this version allows these characters to give (some) audiences a more satisfying ending. Again, not better, just different.

Most remakes aren't as good as the original. I'm not saying that this one is as good. But I think both are worth seeing.

This movie had a lot to live up to. Beetlejuice (1988) is a classic, campy comedy that felt so fresh and original when it came out... and has endeared audiences ever since. Tim Burton was still a relatively new director at the time, but was already making a name for himself after the success of another comedy classic, Pee-wee's Big Adventure, just 2 years prior. Mix this with a perfect cast (Michael Keaton, Winona Ryder, Geena Davis, Catherine O'Hara) and Danny Elfman's score... the result was an instant classic.

Keaton played the title role like no other actor could, and made Beetlejuice one of the funnest characters in movie history. So yeah, releasing a legacy sequel over 3 decades later comes with a lot of high expectations. Unfortunately, even with Burton and all the major players returning, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice doesn't quite satisfy the hype.

One of the main problems I had with the movie (aside from not enough Keaton/Beetlejuice) was too many new characters who didn't really add much to the story. If anything, they took away from it. The exception was Jenny Ortega. She's perfectly cast as Astrid, Lydia Deetz's daughter, and she's really the only new character who's interesting to follow. Monica Bellucci is gothically beautiful to watch, but her character doesn't add any of significance to movie as a whole. Even the always entertaining William Dafoe as a deceased actor/detective doesn't quite hit. In fact, his character comes across as kinda stale and annoying.

Still, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice isn't a bad movie. It's actually quite fun at times. Visually it stays true to the original, including the use of practical effects. Having Keaton, Ryder and O'Hara in their classic characters together again is worth the price of admission alone. The talent was definitely there, but the material wasn't quite worthy enough for them.

If you can watch this movie on it's own merit, instead of comparing it to the 1988 original, you'll probably have a lot more fun. But that's not an easy thing to do.