Critics’ reviews

Beetlejuice (1988)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 82: 6 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Beetlejuice

82
Positive
6
Mixed
0
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Beetlejuice, with praise clustering around Tim Burton’s fanciful afterlife, the sight gags and the offbeat performances. Michael Keaton’s manic bio-exorcist is the most consistently admired presence, while the supporting cast helps make the supernatural comedy work beyond its visual tricks. The reviews also value the everyday irritations beneath the grotesque fantasy: this afterlife has recognisable problems, which give Burton’s flights of imagination something solid to work against.

The reservations concern how well that invention holds together as a story. Time Out finds the film enjoyable despite its disjointed stretches, while Variety considers the afterlife sequences more inventive than the conventional cat-and-mouse business above ground. The New York Times offers the clearest dissent, describing a comedy whose bizarre effects and timing may delight some viewers but leave others finding it unfunny and plotless. The dominant response remains enthusiastic, with less agreement about the plotting than the performances and visual humour.

Empire
1 January 1988 · Ian Freer
85*

The critic finds Tim Burton's outlandish horror comedy full of delights, with newlydeads hiring the titular bio-exorcist leading to manic chaos. A young Winona Ryder, Harry Belafonte music, and Keaton's whirling dervish performance are singled out for praise, with the film still feeling fresh decades later.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
30 March 1988 · Kyle Counts
85*

The critic finds inspired lunacy in this stylized comic fantasy about a bio-exorcist hired by ghosts. Burton's fanciful imagination makes the film colorful, delightfully deranged, and endlessly inventive—a grand-scale funhouse.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · Alan Jones
80

The critic calls it a landmark supernatural comedy showcasing zany special effects, demonic one-liners and offbeat performances. Burton's imaginative view of the afterlife as a ghoulish extension of everyday problems stands out as a visionary masterstroke.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
9 October 2008 · Eric Henderson
80*

Burton's imagination creates a universe of mundane surrealism and candy-coated gothic whimsy, with McDowell's scenario peeling away layers of reality. The high-concept comedy floats thanks to standout character actors and Keaton's unhinged performance.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
30 July 2009 · Scott Tobias
80*

The film has sweetness and ample opportunities for Burton to play around in its ghost story that sides with the ghosts. Keaton's manic performance as the title character is a highlight amid the wacky, candy-colored vision of the afterlife.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· SGr
80*

This ghost story from the haunters' perspective provides surprisingly enjoyable viewing with off-the-wall humour and sensational sight gags. The critic notes it is maddeningly disjointed at times but ultimately an astonishing piece of work.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
30 March 1988 · Janet Maslin

The critic finds the film inventive in its bizarre effects and comic timing for some viewers but largely unfunny and plotless for others, with arbitrary visual tricks holding it together. Michael Keaton's over-the-top bio-exorcist is singled out as the central chaotic force.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1987 · Variety Staff

The review praises the afterlife sequences and Michael Keaton's raucous performance for enlivening the film, while noting that the above-ground antics are less inventive and fall into a trite cat-and-mouse game. Keaton is highlighted as the element that makes the comedy work.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate