on September 4, 2002
Love it or hate it, it doesn't matter, this is still a great blues film. Sure this sequel has a silly plot, but so was the original....it's a joke, get it? I found myself laughing repeatedly as the plot continued to satirize the entire concept of a sequel.....if it was too subtle for you, watch it again....it's right there, brazen as can be.
But who on earth would watch this film for the plot? True to the original, 2000 is a great blues MUSIC sequel. You've got to admire the script writing that has Elwood earnestly trying to convince his band they can compete in a battle of the bands against Clapton backing B.B. with Clarence on sax, or Aretha actually delivering a better take on Respect than on the original film, or John Goodman doing James Browns' cape.....this is great stuff.....and what really matters is that the musicians are having a ball.....and it comes through loud and clear, with soul to spare.
Buy this one for the music, the charisma that jumps off the screen and realize that Belushi would have loved it no matter what.....after all, it still celebrates the blues!
on July 25, 2000
Boy, it took guts to not submit this review anonymously, though I feel less ashamed of myself for liking it after seeing other reviews here. Well, it's not the original-nothing is, and no-one can replace Belushi. (you can't help thinking of that joke while watching this, the one that goes 'what's blue and sings alone? Dan Ackroyd') Thank GOD they used John Goodman instead of Belushi's brother. I didn't like the scene where they all turned into zombies, that was embarrassing--and what the heck did it have to do with the plot? Speaking of the plot, it was pretty much non-existent, mainly an excuse to rehash scenes from the original. But as for the good stuff...Ackroyd did as good of a job as he could. He obviously took off weight for the role, though he is far from the slim, fast-dancing, sexy Elwood he used to be. His dancing has slowed down, but is still solid. He's actually still pretty charming in parts. The kid didn't annoy me anywhere as near as much as I thought he would (mostly because he didn't have many lines) and could really dance, though I winced when he sang. The scene I replayed over and over, that I will probably buy the movie just to own, was when they did "Ghost Riders in the Sky" and there are these killer visuals of storm clouds and then the actual ghost riders themselves--I practically levitated, that part looked so damn cool. Of course, the best thing by far was the sound-track. "John the Revelator" gave me goose bumps. "Lovelight" and even the corny "Lookin for a Fox" caused me to go out and buy the sound-track almost immediately, though I couldn't meet the clerk's eye when I bought it, I was so embarrassed. I love listening to that tape! Worth seeing just for the music-fast forward through everything else if you have to, and stick around after the credits for a treat.
on January 30, 2009
How could any fan of "blues," not like this? I mean, look at all the great performers in this film and how much better does it get to have all of them join in for a couple of jam sessions at the end? The movie sports a "Who's Who" of modern-day blues musicians and singers and also is directed by John Landis, who has directed some of the most entertaining films of the last 25 years.
Yes, it's a dumb story......very dumb......but it's about the music.
The leading actors were amusing: Dan Akyroyd and John Goodman - and a really neat-looking little kid in J. Evan Bonifant who really makes me laugh. Just looking at this 10-year-old dancing is his Blues Brothers outfit alone is worth a number of laughs. Some of the characters in here are so outrageous they would be tough to describe. The car chases, the dances and clothing were all over-the-top story. No, this isn't Shakespeare and it wasn't meant to be. It's probably closer to Dukes Of Hazzard. It's a much nicer-edged movie than the first Blues Brothers but too many people want "edgy" material all the time.
Not only are the characters colorful, so is the cinematography, making it both a visual and audio treat. So....just look at it as a blue concert with a few laughs, and, hopefully, you'll enjoy it.
on March 28, 2003
I absolutely knew there was no way in hell this could be as good as the first movie. I knew that before I saw this one. That's why I wasn't expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. Why they got John Goodman to be in this movie I'll never know. His part just seemed useless. Joe Morton, on the other hand, did a pretty good job. I never knew that guy could sing after seeing him in movies like T2 and Speed.
If you're looking for plot or interesting dialog, you'll be disappointed with this movie. As far as the music goes, it has a lot more than the first movie. I think most of the music is better than the first movie.
This movie has almost all the actors from the first movie. Even the old guy who blows the whistle at the prison during the opening scenes of both movies. The only living person that's missing is Ray Charles. 2000 has more musicians like Wilson Phillips, oh, I mean Pickett, BB King, Sam Moore, Eric Clapton, Travis Tritt, just to name a few. Definitely see this movie for the music.
Now my biggest complaint. Why is this dvd [so much]??? That is one of the most ridiculous dvd prices I've EVER seen. This dvd has no more special features than most other dvds. Why is Universal charging us so much for this? This movie is okay, but not worth [that much]!! Realisticly, this movie belongs in the [discounted] dvd section ... Whatever you do, do not pay this ridiculous price for this dvd. It's worth the wait to wait until the price comes down... If that never happens, don't buy it. Just rent it...
on July 5, 2000
Even if this had been an excellent film, which it is not, there would have been something inherently sad about it. That Belushi's frenzied, comical zeal is missing goes without saying, but seeing Elwood without his brother just seems wrong. It is impossible to view this film without feeling impacted by the real-life tragedy of Belushi's death. In fact, one of the best scenes in "BB2000" is a dialogue-free, wide-view shot of the warden telling Elwood that Jake has died, and Elwood's physical reaction to the news.
Goodman is game, but his timid character leaves Aykroyd as the leader of the band and the film, which seems totally antithetical to Elwood's original, understated demeanor. Jim Belushi, with the same sense of danger as his brother (both consistently seem about a second away from total meltdown), would have made a lot more sense. The apparent desire for a PG-13 rating really seems to damper the "anything goes" spirit of the whole Blues Brothers act, further weakening an already desperate venture.
As a huge fan of the Blues Brothers, I am glad to be able to say that there are some stunning moments on the soundtrack. At least that component of the Blues Brothers has been kept alive -- exposing mainstream culture to some great music, predominantly ignored by the masses. The Blues Brothers may not have been the best blues singers around, but they surrounded themselves with talent that might not gotten the attention it deserved without them. This is about the only thing the two films have in common (except for a shamelessly unimaginative re-hash of the original's plot).
Thanks for trying, guys, but the king is dead.
on December 10, 2011
I know "The Blues Brothers" was a better movie, but I still don't think this movie was so bad. It takes place 18 years after the Blues Brothers got arrested for wrecking Chicago. Elwood Blues is on his own now that his brother Jake has died, but nonetheless embarks on another "Mission from God", and once again attempts to put the band back together. It's not as funny as the original because of John Belushi not being in it, but I think John would have been proud of the music. I thought the music was the backbone of this production and that the artists did very well. Plus, how can anybody be against bringing most of the original cast back, like Aretha Franklin and James Brown? I'm thrilled that they agreed to this. All in all, I think it's a good movie that shouldn't have been panned by the critics.
on October 19, 2006
If you love good music, this movie will entertain you from start to finish.
No one watches a Blues Brother movie for complex characters or surprising plot twists. This movie is what it was intended to be - fun. It does mirror the first movie, but that is part of its charm. The whole movie plays like a "Who's Who" of music:
and much more.
It is a must-see.
on October 14, 2005
The first film was a classic homage to the blues that featured great music, performances, and locations. The sequel is a tired retread that seems like little more than director John Landis and Dan Ackroyd trying to recapture lost glory--and failing miserably. It's painful to write this since the lead actors--Ackroyd, John Goodman, and Joe Morton--are so likeable. But it missteps all the way. I thought the cliche of the cute kid (J. Evan Bonifant) sidekick went away decades ago. Many scenes in this film, such as Elwood's meeting with Sister Mary Stigmata (Kathleen Freeman) and the catclysmic finale to a police chase, are direct remakes of scenes from the first film, but here they feel tired and mechanical. The fantasy sequences of the first film (Jake seeing the light; the Nazi car dropping from an impossible height) managed to be fun, but the ones in this film are outlandish and silly. The one saving grace, and the reason I give two stars instead of one, is that there are some great musical numbers. I'm glad that Landis managed to get so many of these blues legends on screen while they're still here, but I kept wishing that I was watching a blues version of the "Buena Vista Social Club" rather than another tepid Hollywood sequel.
on July 16, 2007
If you're looking for a film that Gene Siskel or Pauline Kael would approve of, then don't go near this. Just don't. The plot's been done a hundred times, including the first Blues Brothers movie.
What makes the thing worthwhile is the music. How hard do you think it was to get all these people together? The last scene alone is worth the $10 the DVD will cost you. B.B. King, Dr. John, and Clapton on the same stage? James Brown and Blues Travelers in the same movie?
Think of the film as a compilation album with lots of car crashes.
William Goldman has said something along the lines that movie sequels are usually written by literary... I like Dan Aykroyd a lot. John Landis has a lot of talent as a director. And I enjoyed almost all of the original BLUES BROTHERS. However, I'm sad to say that this long delayed and awaited sequel is a poor companion to the original; Akyroyd and Landis have prostituted their talents for almost nothing. It has nothing to do with the absence of the late John Belushi either (John Goodman does a decent job as a replacement). It has everything to do with the poorly written script. The original film had a few outrageous scenes (the chase at the end is far-fetched, but remains as the best chase scene of all time), but they were tightly knitted together. Not so in BLUES BROTHERS 2000. It is as though Aykroyd and Landis just rehashed stuff from the first movie to make this film seem Blues Brothersish. It just doesn't work. Outside of Goodman and Aykroyd, the only thing that saves this film from being a total flop is the music. Therefore, you're better off listening to the soundtrack than watching the movie. You won't miss out on anything that way and are saved watching a lot of garbage.