So why would this need a sign language interpretation? Is that part of a joke?

Probably catch it this weekend.

It's for people who "speak" ASL, which is not a direct translation of English grammar, but has its own rules, and is considered a separate language. They did a version with sign language interpretation for Barbie as well. I watched a bit of it, and found it interesting how the interpreted also used their hands not just for dialogue, but to "translate" swells of music and sound effects.

I haven't read through this thread, so I'm sure I'm going to repeat things already said. I liked it a lot, wanted to love it, but never quite got there. I think there was too much going on, and very little of it ended up feeling like it had any real importance. Probably the biggest example of this is Monica Belluci's character. I loved her intro and flashback, but her storyline was nonexistent. It was all a bunch of buildup just to be seemingly shrugged away. You could say that about a few things in the movie. There's a part of me that sort of likes that Burton was subverting plot expectations in a big Hollywood movie, but I think I liked the concept better than the execution.

I went into this with zero expectations, none, and ended up enjoying the hell out of it! It wasn’t perfect. MacArthur Park was a poor follow-up to the Banana Boat song from the original and the resolutions to several storylines were weak, to say the least. As mentioned Bellucci’s character as well as Astrid’s boyfriend had virtually no resolution at all. But the story was fun and the humor hit me just right. All the little facial expressions from the characters made me laugh several times. The whole thing just worked for me and I really wasn’t expecting any of it to.

It really felt like Burton made a live-action cartoon. And although there were call backs to the first one, they really took this in a new direction. Everything from Keaton breaking the fourth wall to the claymation explanation of Lydia’s dad’s death, to the old foreign film flashback of Beetlejuice’s ex-wife were all welcome additions.

The original was on almost constant rotation through my childhood still take a lot to surpass that one and I’ll have to give this new one a rewatch or two to see if it holds up but the first go-round was a delight!

This movie works so well because even with all its faults......it has that old school charm to it and that's all because of Burton.

Sadly, Burton said he wasn't interested in a trilogy, but I was really hoping for it.

Too bad. Not that it needs a third movie but I thought for sure they were working up to Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice.

Same. Maybe Burton is messing with us. Hope he is anyway.

Finally got around to watching this and thought it was pretty bad. The original is in my top 3 favorite Tim Burton films but nothing about the trailers made me interested in this sequel and now after watching it I concur with my original judgment. Baffled that they claimed they never made a sequel because they never had a good script and this is the one that got the film made.

I think "good script" is Hollywoodese for "enough money/coke".

Caught this last night and it held my interest thru-out, with a few laugh out loud moments. The first will always be better, but this one was really good. I'll be adding this one to my collection....

This. I am not understanding the love that this movie is getting. 35 years to get a script together and this is what they ended up with? This thread goes back to 2011 and talks quite a bit about the "bad" scripts . . . and this is what they came up with? More like they got a green light and money, so they gave up and tossed it all together to come up with . . . this?

This was a series of site-gags and quips (and not great ones) that they tried to piece together plots around. The basis of the A, B, and C plots were good ideas . . . but then they exorcised all emotion, meaning, and point to all three of them. The decision making in this was very questionable, and it was barely connected to the first one. Honestly, it feels as if it was made by somebody who had never seen the first movie but had grown up on the cartoon. Just to itch that scratch, I watched the first one immediately after. I am glad I didn't watch it before, because it would have shined an even brighter light on how bad this was.

The Maitlands were the point of the first movie, not Lydia or Beetlejuice. I get not wanting to include them for either story or logistical reasons, but you need to replace the heart of the film that they provided. Astrid and the Ghost Boy were a way to do that. (Lydia and the Douchenozzle did nothing for me.)

Was Delia not Lydia's mom? There was a scene on the porch when they discussed Lydia's mom. I went back and watched the first one and there was no reference that I could find. Lydia calls her Delia, but I just thought that was an angsty child thing (my aunt always called my grandma by her name; she said it was because there were 5 of them and "mom" didn't get a response).

I totally understand not having Jeffrey Jones in this . . . so why have Jeffrey Jones in this? Seriously, WTF? I know the character and the actor are not the same, but you threw his face out there every chance you could and glorified the character. Just cut the character. Pitch Meeting nailed it with "Oh, no, we aren't going to just hand waive that away." "What about the Maitlands?" "We'll just hand waive that away." I am assuming one of the original scripts tried to replace the Maitlands being the heart of the film with Charles and Delia. I actually like the core of the idea of Delia trying to traverse the afterlife to find him. Seems as if they tried to keep it and be creative with the shark bite body (which I did laugh at). However, Charles and Delia didn't have a loving relationship in the first movie and they don't have one here.

Beeltejuice is a demon now? There was no mention of that in the first movie. He was strictly a ghost. He had been an apprentice to the Maitalnds case worker, but then decided to go "freelance" and claim to be a bio-exorcist. At no point in the movie was he a "good guy" though. This is why I feel this movie is approached more akin the cartoon, where Lydia and Beetlejuice are friends and he is a "good" guy. However, in this movie, he still isn't a good guy (but it feels as if we are supposed to think he is) . . . so I don't know. Tonally, this is a hot steaming pile of ecto-mess when it comes to the characters as well as the missing plots.

The Beetlejuice-Delores plotline could have been great. Instead, she sucked the soul out of the movie and then disappeared into development hell, a place this movie should have stayed.

Step-mom. Established in the original film.

Lydia: Why were you guys creeping around Delia's bedroom?
Adam: We were trying to scare your mother.
Lydia. Step-mother. Anyway, you can't scare her, she's sleeping with "Prince valium" tonight.

I have totally missed that for 35 years . . .

Sounds like another opportunity for a much better storyline!

I caught the Prince Valium line last night . . . still missed that first part.

When I was a kid, I didn't understand the valium pun, so I thought Prince Valiant was a sarcastic nickname for Charles

This is now on Netflix

But Prince Valium was in Spaceballs, and very sleepy

Just watched this and really enjoyed it. It's not great like the original movie, but I was entertained throughout. Loved seeing more of the afterlife world. Loved Bob and his coworkers! The actors were all good--especially Ryder and O'Hara--though Keaton wasn't quite as manic as in the first movie but, hey, that was 36 years ago. I do wish Monica Belucci's character had more screentime (and maybe a little less of Dafoe). The tease/tag at the end was less "feel good" than the ending of the original. Overall, though, it was fun and I'll watch it again some day.