As I noted in my review of Beetlejuice, Michael Keaton set his career back on course during 1988. With starring roles in that film and Clean and Sober, he attracted a great deal of attention, which partially resulted in his casting as the title character in 1989’s megahit Batman.

Interestingly, this redemption occurred via two extremely different movies. In contrast to the perverse fantasy romp Beetlejuice, we find the much more realistic and down to earth drama of Clean and Sober. While Beetlejuice boasts many elements that make it work, Clean and Sober really only has one: its cast.

Get beyond Keaton and supporting actors such as Kathy Baker, Morgan Freeman, and M. Emmet Walsh, and you're dealing with fairly typical TV-movie fare.

Cocaine addict and alcoholic Daryl Poynter (Keaton) runs into potential trouble when a sexual partner dies after an evening of illicit activities. He also embezzled money at work and finds himself desperate for somewhere to hide.

Daryl checks himself into a rehabilitation facility as a way to avoid the world until matters settle. As he goes through the program, he finds himself challenged in unexpected ways.

Although the possibility that he would "ham it up" seemed great, Keaton largely avoids the pitfalls commonly experienced by comedic actors who turn to drama. At times he goes too broad, but for the most part he keeps himself restrained and believable.

Despite Keaton's best efforts, however, I'm not terribly sure that I really believe his character's transformation from reckless drunk/druggie to stable recovering drunk/druggie. While his change doesn't occur in the "miraculous" way that some films might display, it still seems too easy for me to fully accept.

Much of the first half of the film works hard to establish that Daryl definitely doesn't buy into the whole rehab/AA culture and that he doesn't think he has a problem. But then all of a sudden he does begin to accept and embrace the notion of a drug and alcohol free lifestyle.

It never makes much sense why he changes so drastically. I suppose part of it occurs because he meets and falls for Charlie (Baker), another recovering addict. His affection for her enables Daryl to go from wastoid in the first half of the film to attempted-redeemer during the second part as he tries to persuade Charlie to escape her abusive relationship and to keep her from falling back into her old cocaine-loving habits.

I guess this intends to make the film gritty, but it all seems too artificial to me. Even though he seems like a probable candidate for relapse, we never see Daryl stumble once he makes his commitment.

Instead, the movie has others like Charlie and another rehab center patient give in to their temptations. That looks like the film wants to have its cake and eat it too, as it wants to show us the pitfalls and perils experienced by recovering addicts, but it doesn't want to tarnish the newly shiny image it gives to its protagonist.

That just doesn't wash, and the cowardly way it introduces bathos at the end of the film really ruins the experience. No spoilers here, but let's just say the filmmakers try to have both happy and sad endings at the same time, and it deflates any real possibilities for either.

Baker does fine as Charlie. Actually, she probably fares better than Keaton since her character comes across like more of a real person throughout the entire picture, as opposed to the role model Daryl becomes.

Freeman provides his usual rock-solid performance as rehab counselor Craig. Too bad his work becomes wasted in an underwritten and largely inconsequential role.

Don't get me wrong: Clean and Sober is by no means a bad film. It's simply extremely mediocre despite its very capable cast.

Nothing here makes it stand out. We've seen it all before, and the film fails to do it in a way that offers any kind of new or unusual experience.

Clean and Sober appears in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 on this Blu-ray Disc. This became a watchable but somewhat flat experience.

Which likely followed design choices, though some of the drab nature of the image reflected the era’s film stock tendencies. Those often gave us less than stellar visuals.

In any case, sharpness seemed perfectly adequate and occasionally pretty good. A few too many soft shots occurred but most of the movie exhibited fairly solid accuracy.

I saw no issues with jagged edges or shimmering, and edge haloes remained absent. Grain seemed natural and I witnessed no print flaws.

Colors tended toward dreary blue-greens or amber/reds. The latter left complexions a bit ruddy and the hues never excelled, but they seemed acceptable given the movie’s ambitions.

Blacks appeared reasonably deep and shadows offered mostly positive clarity. This turned into a less than attractive movie but the visuals made sense for the story.

As for the movie’s DTS-HD MA monaural soundtrack, it seemed as low-key as one would anticipate given the subdued nature of the project. Dialogue exhibited a little edginess at times but the lines usually displayed fairly natural tones and they always remained easily intelligible.

Music and effects both played a minimal role in the proceedings and lacked a lot of range. Still, the mix reproduced them in a reasonably good manner. Nothing stood out as impactful but the track seemed adequate for this film.

How did the Blu-ray compare to the DVD version of the film? That one came out waaaay back in 1998 and only provided a cropped 1.33:1 presentation.

As far as I can tell, the Blu-ray marks the film’s original aspect ratio debut in the US. That inherently made the visuals an upgrade, but the disc also came with improved clarity and definition.

Audio turned into a more complicated topic, mainly because the DVD offered a Dolby Surround track vs. the monaural mix found here on the BD. If we can trust IMDB, the former acted as the theatrical version, so that left me perplexed about the presence of the mono edition here.

Perhaps IMDB got it wrong and perhaps the DVD provided a remix whereas the BD came with the original 1988 audio. That seems tough to swallow, though, as it makes no sense that a bargain bare bones DVD would’ve bothered to remix the track when it didn’t even bother to provide OAR.

I suspect the DVD got the audio right and the BD goofed. Because I’m not sure about that, I went on what I heard but I still think it seems likely the movie originally ran with surround audio.

Note that this makes it seem odd that I gave the DVD a “C-“ for its sound and the BD a “C+”. Well, I wasn’t as well-informed about the subject back in 1999 and thought the DVD’s track deserved that lower grade because it seemed so lackluster by then-current standards.

And the Dolby Surround track was forgettable, but at least it broadened to the sides and rears a little, which means it does more than this disc’s mono. I no longer can access the DVD, but even with lossy audio, I suspect I’d give it a better grade now. Still, since I can’t check it out again, the “C-“ stands!

The Blu-ray includes the movie’s trailer and no other extras.

Clean and Sober benefits from some excellent actors. However, the story itself fails to rise above the level of bland melodrama. The Blu-ray comes with generally positive picture and audio but it lacks supplements. Don’t expect much from this spotty drama.