Rating: 
Summary: Not a good idea....
Review: The original "Blues Brothers" film was an epic comedy. There is something very special about it, as many other reviewers here have expressed. For me, "The Blues Brothers" is to comedy what "Star Wars" is to sci-fi/adventure. No other film is quite like it, and the key characters have become pop culture icons. I think that the reason for making this film was to try and revive the long-time declining careers of Dan Aykroyd and John Landis. It is very unfortunate they didn't reconsider. "Blues Brothers 2000" tries to maintain a happy-go-lucky feel, but three very important people are missing. As has been said over and over again, John Belushi was fifty percent of the Blues Brothers and therefore ends up sorely missed. Probably the best scene in the movie is the opening, with the stark rendition of "John the Revelator" playing while Elwood is released from prison. Elwood waits at the side of the road, unaware that his brother has passed away. It is a shockingly melancholy and very moving way to begin the film. Even more shocking is how hard Aykroyd and Landis strain to make the viewers forget this sadness throughout the remainder of the film. Other key participants missing from this film are the late John Candy and Cab Calloway. Candy provided a lot of laughs in the first film and Calloway provided a lot of heart (he was, after all, a father figure to Jake and Elwood). I have seen some reviews say it is unfair to compare this film with the original. Well, I don't see how one can NOT compare it-- so much of "Blues Brothers 2000" merely rehashes classic scenes from the first film-- to much poorer effect. Aretha does "Respect" in place of "Think", the band again incites the anger of a racist organization, a significant 'revelation' occurs at a gospel church, etc, etc. If "2000" had attempted to be it's own film without relying so heavily on the earlier one, maybe it would've had a chance to stand on its own. In place of Belushi we have THREE new frontmen-- John Goodman, Joe Morton, and the young kid (I don't remember the actor's name). All give it their all (and Joe Morton is actually a pretty good singer), but it's really a lost cause.
Rating:
Summary: Good Music, Sloppy Movie
Review: I have to give some credit to this movie for its grand music at the end. Otherwise, though, its fairly bland. The story lacks the ingenious humor of the original and John Belushi is badly missed. Elwood then loses something because he now has to take the front role, thus losing his monotone quality that was so much a part of his character in the first film. This battle of the bands, however, is a real plus. Seeing B.B. King, Eric Clapton, Charlie Musselwhite etc. on stage together was thrilling.
Rating: 
Summary: well, I like it!
Review: It's not often a sequel turns out to be as good as the original. But I'm gonna say a blasphemous thing: I prefer this sequel to the original. Yeah, I know, Belushi's gone. Goodman can't take his place, but he gets high marks for trying. The little kid, irritating at first, begins to grow on ya. Back again are the stupid thugs ya love to hate -- the same old morons from the KKK and neo-Nazi militia, and a creepy new bunch, the Russkiy Mafiya. In a rehash of the original, the entire Illinois police department is again in hot pursuit of our heroes. This time around they're all enroute to the Louisiana Bayou for a Creole voodoo-Queen's annual "Battle of the Blues". It's great to watch the Blues Brothers revisit some of the clubs and folks they scammed in the original. Of course, the best thing about the 2000 version is the reunion of all the wonderful musicians (Well, most, that is; the years, unfortunately, have taken their toll, and only the music is immortal...) But it's awesome to see the original cast, and the blues sound even better this time around! I'm sorry to see so many viewers were disappointed by the film. It's pure fun!
Rating: 
Summary: Can I be a huge fan too?
Review: First of all, I have to admit that I enjoyed BLUES BROTHERS 2000 on its own terms. That is, a light comedy with some good blues music, and some high energy performances by Akroyd, Goodman, et al. Sure, Goodman's not Belushi, but so what? He was funny and that's what it's all about, isn't it. I noticed that in the first 10 reviews I read, three of the reviewers identified themselves as "huge Blues Brothers fans." I think that I'd like to be a huge fan too. How does one qualify? Is there a membership fee and a card that identifies a huge fan? Or, maybe I have to put on weight, or perhaps, you're just born a huge fan. I like the Blues Brothers, I've even seen a Blues Brothers look-alike group perform at Universal Studios. I stayed and watched the whole performance. Will that qualify me? Anyway, to reiterate my opening comments,I did enjoy this movie, and I feel no need to compare it to the original which I liked too -- on just the same basis -- a couple of hours of escapist entertainment -- that ought to be enough for this type of movie. Too much analysis can take the fun out of anything.
Rating:
Summary: CALL ME LOWBROW!
Review: You can call me lowbrow, or tell me that I lack good taste, or whatever other derogatory comments might come to mind, but I have to admit to getting a kick out of this movie. I think it is inevitable that when an actor, athlete, singer, or what have you, takes over a role or position that someone else has made famous, a number of unfavorable comparisons are made. (Look at what happened when Steve Young first appeared as quarterback in San Francisco. Many fans were very vocal about expressing opinions that he would never fill Joe Montana's shoes. Time sure proved them wrong.) The late John Belushi brought his unique form of expression to the original BLUES BROTHERS movie. John Goodman brings a different kind of talent. Why not give him credit for what he does rather than make comparisons. I thought that his evolution from a wimpy bartender to Akroyd's stage partner actually took a bit of acting talent. Additionally, there was a lot of high energy musical talent on display, and a lot of humor if you were willing to accept this movie as what it was: a comedy featuring the comedic talents of Akroyd, Goodman, and their supporting cast, in addition to their own brand of singing and dancing styles. I came to this movie with an open mind, watched it with an admittedly uncritical eye, and spent a couple of pleasant hours watching it and laughing at the on screen antics.
Rating: 
Summary: SUCKS, SUCKS, SUCKS
Review: Being the huge Blues Brothers fan that I am, I was INCREDIBLY disapppointed when I saw this movie. All I have to say is that the script to this sequel should have been left on a director's shelf to collect dust. Not only is it impossible to recreate the magic that Belushi brought to the first, but it looks like Dan Akroyd's acting has gotten worse and is not as nimble and light on his feet as he once was! I'm convinced that John Landis has just lost all common sense when it comes to making movies. AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE!!
Rating:
Summary: What's missing
Review: Great music, lots of star power and a good deal of nostalgia went into this movie. The only real problem is--there's no John Belushi. Without him, half of the Blues Brothers soul is gone.
Rating:
Summary: not a good sequal
Review: well... i tried to like this movie, i really did. being the huge blues brothers fan that i am, i was so excited to hear about this long awaited sequal. i even saw it twice at the cinema... and i bought it on dvd... but i still cant stand it. its jsut not even the same type of movie as the original, its been transformed into something that would apeal to little kids. where are all the "F" words that john belushi said to make the original so hard edged and funny? and one more thing... NOT ENOUGH CAR CHASES! im sorry but as much as i hate to say it, this is a real bad movie. im just happy to watch the original over and over again, and pretend that the sequal doesnt exist.
Rating:
Summary: Good for the Battle of the Bands, But Little Else
Review: Frequently, sequels are never as good as the movies from which they were spawned. "Caddyshack 2", "Beverly Hills Cop 2", and "Look Who's Still Talking" immediately come to mind. Sadly, "Blues Brothers 2000" follows that same trend. Just released from prison (in which brother Jake died), Elwood Blues goes about reassembling a band. If he was capable of doing this without Jake, then why didn't he do it in "The Blues Brothers"? Easy answer: he couldn't. Elwood's lineup includes an annoying kid (J. Evan Bonifant), a marginally adequate vocalist (John Goodman, in the worst role he's ever played), and eventually, Elwood's long lost brother (played by an obviously embarrassed Joe Morton)who has become a Captain in the Illinois State Police. The only redeeming part of this motion picture is an all star "battle of the bands" blues jam featuring big names such as Eric Clapton, Blues Traveler, B. B. King, and Johnny Lang (among others) that will blow your socks off. Sadly, even that cannot save this awful motion picture. In reality, "Blues Brothers 2000" is nothing more than a good blues jam preceded by an insipid and uninspired action movie that is uninteresting and unentertaining. I hope the soundtrack album saved this stinkburger from becoming a money loser for the studio.
Rating:
Summary: a very guilty pleasure
Review: 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.
|
