Blues Brothers 2000

Blues Brothers 2000

Blues Brothers 2000

Blues Brothers 2000

I love the 1980 film "The Blues Brothers". In fact, it may be my favorite movie of all time. I like it for three main reasons, descending: 1. The fantasic, fanciful car chases. 2. The great music (I have a copy of the soundtrack). 3. The great deadpan acting of both Aykroyd and Belushi. Now, if the new movie didn't have half of 3 and a not really good 2, I could forgive them. But what the heck happened to 1? I sat through the entire movie thinking "Okay, it's really bad now, but I have the great ending chase to look forward to." It was one of the worst disappointments ever when Elwood and that stupid kid just drove off and the credits roll. What goes on? The chases that were in it were short and (in the case of massive multi-cop car crash scene that takes forever) dumb. A total falure on everyone and everything's part.

The Blues Brothers is one of the most classic comedies of the past 25 years. Somehow, someone decided to mess up the legacy by creating a sequel...18 years later. Dan Akyroyd returns as Ellwood Blues. He has just been released from jail, and trying to put the band back together again. Because of the real life death of John Belushi, the writers instead throw in John Goodman and a child as new band players. First of all, I want to point out that I respect in this film that when Ellwood tells Goodman about Jake, the writers didn't come up with "Oh, he's down in Florida vacationing" or something stupid excuse for his absence like that. At least they payed John the respect he deserved, and Ellwood tells him that "Jake died" paying some respect to John Belushi and his character, Jake Blues. Where they got the idea for a child to join the band is beyond me. Is this a guarantee PG-13 or what? Obviously they decided to make this at least a PG-13, and I think that is stupid. The original film was R, and sticking to it they should have done the same here. I like when there are family films, but this film is not! There is a strip bar sequence, and yet this is PG-13? Come on! As for these scenes, they paid absolutely nothing worthwhile to the film, other than filling in 20 minutes of stupid cheap gimmicks (Ellwood gets on stage and sings blues as the strippers come out) This is so dumb, and while the original had obvious dumb sequences, they came out funny-dumb, this film did not. It almost was not intended to be a real film, rather a joining of Akyroyd with Blues. They do not really care about the film itself. It's like a music video gone wrong. You'd expect to pick this video up and have a music CD pop out instead of a film. How anyone could think up such a lame excuse of a sequel is beyond me, and how Dan Akyroyd would ever join the cast again just completely mind boggling to me. What was Dan thinking? Overall this film pays some respects to John Belushi's SNL and film legacy, but overall does more damage to him than honor. I am disgusted that Dan would do this to such a classic film, and such a classic comedian. John Belushi wasn't a favorite of mine, but he was pretty funny, and very controversial for the time. I think if he were around today he would've lost his career like Dan, Chevy, Steve, and Bill. Not that these hilarious guys don't do funny films anymore, but they don't do ENOUGH films, anymore (especially Chevy, he has the most wasted career out of all) So if you like cheap gimmicks and rip-offs of the first Blues Brothers film, by all means see Blues Brothers 2000. But if you're like me and hate cheap gimmicks and unhonorable rip-offs, then stay clear of this flop. 1/5 stars- JOHN ULMER

Blues Brothers 2000 has a few points in its favor. The opening is 99% right. It only lacks a brief explanation on why the red car turns up (most likely because the manager made a phone call). Otherwise it is great, a tribute to the lost Belushi. There are also much good music, almost as good as the original. Not least, Aretha Franklin's appearance is truly funny, especially when you have seen the original movie. But the movie lacks the plot of the original. The original plot may have been thin, but it was enough to drive the story. This one lacks that, there is no motivation, no goal to speak of, and the result is that the ending comes as a surprise. Was that it, was that the end of the movie? Then what? But when I saw it the second time, I was prepared and enjoyed the music instead. Another weakness is the lack of special effects. The original movie made a big thing of overdoing car chases in very funny ways. This movie rather under-does them. In the time it was made, it should have used computer graphics to do plenty more than the original. Now they smash a few cars, but little remarkable happens. In particular, there are no original ideas in the car chases. So don't expect too much, just enjoy the music and the fun parts (they sure exist). And don't get bothered by Buster. Without him, Cab wouldn't go after Elwood, right?

The only way this film can not be awe inspiring is if you watch it on a 10" black and white TV with a 4 watt sound system. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I watched this on a 70" projection screen and 7.2 pristine and precise surround sound. I have seen this film at least 20 times and get the same pleasure from it each time. Aretha Franklin's voice and the musical abilities of almost the entire cast would carry any film, but this one doesn't need it. The story might not be completely developed (euphemism) but the Russian mobsters and GI Joes scenes are gutbustingly funny. Also, for anyone who has ever listened to "modern" music and wondered where the world was going to, Dan Akroyd's motivational speech is something to behold. Although I never expected to say this, because I'm a non-religious person, the gospel choir's rendition of "John the Revelator" sends shivers down your spine. I love this film, and would recommend it to anyone who likes good music.

Aside from everything, like Dan Aykroyd's dwindling ability to write a compelling story with good dialog, the ridiculous "say whaaa" parts, and Elwood's complete change in character, what grinds my gears the very most, is the poster, it was advertised "Aykroyd, Goodman: They're back in blue" completely disregarding the existence of the great John Belushi..... plus the movie sucked major balls if not for the music, and the kid's dance skills, i couldn't watch it.... so very sad, and unfair! OHHH SCHNICKELFRITZ!

As good as the original Blues Brothers movie was, as bad is this sequel: After a rather boring warmup of old scenes which are by far not as good as the original ones, it looks like the producers have run out of money - because the end is where there was the first hope that there will be some action. OK, I concede the songs are great again, but the plot...forget it. If you like the music of the old Bluesbrothers movies, you might consider to buy the soundtrack - that contains everything which is good about that movie.

I can't think of too many sequels that are nearly as good as the original. The list gets even smaller for sequels that topped the original. Now Blues Brothers 2000 is horribly bad, even for a sequel. It does serve as a good example of doing a sequel by numbers. First, it needs to have everything that made the original famous. Let's see, huge car chase, check. A great band that can't get a gig, check. Lots of ticked off people in pursuit of the band, check. Second requirement, the sequel's plot must only deviate slightly from the original. The film "succeeds" here admirably with most of the best remembered jokes and character traits of the original repeated in ever so slightly modified form. Like most sequels, this movie has no artistic merit whatsoever. It is strictly a cash-in only affair. John Landis hasn't had a success for some time and Dan Aykroyd hasn't had more than supporting roles for a while either. What they've done here however is production line fodder which, ironically for a movie about a blues band, has no soul in it at all. Obviously this movie doesn't have John Belushi in it which means that one thing that made the first movie great, the interplay between him and Dan Aykroyd is missing here. Now I have a soft spot for John Goodman but it just doesn't work here. At least John Landis and Aykroyd didn't replace John with Jim Belushi, perish the thought. But then they decided to add two additional Blues Brothers, a police officer who during the movie discovers the blues and most annoyingly an 11 year old Blues Brother kid. Someone must have looked at the "Sitcom 101" manual and found in chapter 1, entitled "Kids are cute" the instruction that kids who do adult things are always cute and bring laughs. Well, just like in sitcoms, this turns out to be truly stomach turning. The really sad thing about this movie is that it hammered home how far in front Hollywood puts making money instead of making great movies.