Blues Brothers 2000 (El ritmo continúa)

Okay, I have read most of the reviews here for this sequel and I, like most of the people who have responded with reviews of their own, LOVED the original and John Belushi, and I really have no problem with people trashing the film, or John Goodman even, but when someone like this one dude trashes The QUEEN OF SOUL because she's gained weight over the years or because she sings one of her most famous standards. "Respect," that shows NO R-E-S-P-E-C-T at ALL. The woman is STILL the greatest singing voice of the Twentieth AND Twenty First century and it is her VOICE that is the best ever, and that song remains the most beautiful anthem of R&B, blues and soul... and to trash that destroys any credibility you had up to that point as a worthy critic of ANY kind. John Belushi, John Candy and Cab Calloway are dead and nothing can be done about that, but to say this film is totally without merit is silly and so is comparing it to the original Blues Brothers movie, which, by the way, has plotholes you could drive a CONVOY of trucks through. For instance, what the hell were the Good Ole Boys country band p****d about? Didn't they arrive AFTER THE BAR WAS CLOSED EXPECTING TO PLAY? That should have had their cabaret and union license taken away right there, and it's their OWN damn fault. And then the comments about Dan Ackroyd's bald spot. Didn'[t they guy wear a hat the whole time anyway? SO THAT'S a pretty lame critique too. Look, the music was phenomenal, the speech that Dan makes about the Russian mob is classic, inspired Dan Ackroyd writing... and the kid had some decent moves and could play the mouth harp with the best of them (assuming he really DID play the thing) and I loved the "Ghost Rider's In The Sky" rendition done by the band. So don't compare it to the original. It's an homage, for cryin' out loud, though I do wish John's brother Jim Belushi had been in it, but it had something to do with contractual stuff, I believe, anyway. The film is not gold but it's not crap either.

Contrary to popular opinion, this is not a sequel. It is supposed to be a tribute to the original. People who bash this movie without reading Aykroyd's interviews are ignorant to the intent here. This movie was originally to be a sequel back in 1981 just before Belushi died. When that happened, the idea for another adventure fell away. But after almost two decades, Aykroyd wanted to do something to revisit the classic film and pay homage to his friend and co-star Belushi, so he assembled this "Concert Movie", which is supposed to be all about THE MUSIC, not the story. The only reason a story was put in was to keep it moving from musical number to musical number, because everyone knows that straight concert films are pretty boring, even if you really like the performer(s). So here it is, for the true Blues Brothers fans to enjoy. P.S.-And if your problem with the plot was some of the cartoony style actions that occur (Cabel being pulled heavenward and his clothes magically "changing", et cetera), remember that the original had the same things. In the first one the entire band's clothing "magically" changes for a concert, but if you know that this is merely a representation of the character's psychological state and not a literal change, then the film works much better. The same idea works for the much-maligned "zombie" sequence near the end at Queen Mousette's mansion. Also, people complain about the Bluesmobile in this film being able to drive underwater. Well, in the first film the car flew, performed flips, and was nearly indestructible. In fact, if you watch the DVD of the first film, you find in the deleted scenes and "Making-of" section that the Bluesmobile is supposed to be "magic", because it was parked each night inside a power transformer. How is that for cheesiness on the first film? So that also explains Elwood's ability to smuggle himself in the dash of the car in this one, and the car being able to crash land from a fiery loop-de-loop at the fairgrounds. Even though I wish this film could have been a little edgier and darker in tone like the original, I do find its bold and effective use of color to be magnificent and fascinating. Perhaps this film has a little more depth than people expect, so they incorrectly perceive it to be a lackluster and shallow mindnumbing entertainment. I know better ....... Remove the stars in the address to e-mail me.

Dear John Landis,

I have just watched Blues Brothers 2000. I am a fan of the original movie and didn't expect much from the sequel (no offence).

It's good that you made no effort to change the plot from the first one and just rehashed the first movie. Also I was amused by the way that one of the highlights of the film was a hugh car crash with several minutes of cars flying over cars flying over cars etc (it's good to see film-making has come so far since Smokie and the Bandit!).

In fairness to you, you managed to get a lot of good artists together and a lot of good songs. So here's my suggestion for the furture - whenever Dan Akroyd wants his next career boost and asks to do a BB3 - why not just record a pile of good songs and release a CD instead?

That way I won't need to sit through another poorly plotted, overdone, messy copy of a much better film.

What a mess! Hang your head in shame (but tap your feet to the beat!)

yours sincerely,

Bob the Moo

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?

Blues Brothers 2000 is a movie with good intentions, Aykroyd and Landis once again team up to recapture the magic in tribute to John Belushi, and almost all of the original cast are still here. Musically the magic is still there and without a doubt this film is all about the music, but the original Blues Brothers film was about so much more.

Blues Brothers 2000 like the first film has very little plot, and that didn't matter the first time around, but this time; without the comedy, the lack of plot is all too apparent. I just didn't find this film funny, with a few rehashed gags and some new ones that didn't work Blue Brothers 2000 really does struggle to entertain.

John Goodman doesn't try and replace John Belushi, and he actually does a good job in poor role, but the introduction of a kid to the Blues Brothers Band seemed completely pointless and adds absolutely nothing to the film.

The saving grace is the music, with Eric Clapton, BB King, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, etc. and the original Blues Brothers Band, the music is damn good, but this alone is not enough.

Thanks for trying, but must try harder. 5/10