Blues Brothers 2000

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.

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.

It takes guts to make a sequel to a movie after 20 years, especially after the original has become a legend and the star has died since.

However this movie does a lot of things right and frankly, even if it had been perfect, some people would hate it anyway. The film suffers from not having John Belushi, but John Goodman puts in a good effort, and I for one was surprised at the quality of his singing. James Brown and Aretha Franklin reprise their guest roles. The music is not as good as the original but still better than most music in the charts these days.

The humour from the original is here but it is not as funny as the original. In fact all elements from the original are here in slightly inferior forms, with the exception of the car chase, which is better.

To be honest, it is worth seeing this film just to see how all the band has aged. i would recommend it to anyone who enjoys Blues music, though fans of the original may be disappointed

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 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