Blues Brothers 2000

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

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.

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

Blues musicians don't get much national exposure and the Blues Brothers did finally awaken some rock audiences to who these men and women were. Lord knows Chess Records tried in the late 60s and early 70s. Muddy Waters and Howlin Wolf were suddenly doing albums that sounded more like rock music, they did an album together then they did albums with British rock musicians. Muddy lived long enough for the major success after those failed efforts. The Wolf did not.

Fast forward to the late 90s where the musical climate was boy bands, pop like Oasis, No Doubt, Blur, Blink 182, Spice Girls, hip hop and nu metal. This movie comes out and everyone's reaction is the same because John Belushi's been dead for years. The people who think that missed the point of the original premise.

This movie while it could have had a better story (maybe a memorial service fot Jake would've worked or an attempt by Elwood to have Jake's name ring out like Robert Johnson's? The conflict comes from trying to convince him how asinine that is. Disrespectful yes but that makes for good comedy too. That conflict might have been a funny excuse to bring all the blues musicians to rock out), it still is supposed to be about the music and more so than the original, this one is a who's who for surviving Blues musicians, most of whom are long gone now 22 years later. BB King, Lonnie Brooks, KoKo Taylor, Eddie Floyd, Charlie Musselwhite, Bo Diddley, Dr John, Aretha Franklin reprising her role, James Brown reprising his role, my personal favorite is Junior Wells (HooDoo Man is a classic) and thats to name a few. The original had John Lee Hooker briefly, Cab Calloway, James Brown, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin and maybe 40 minutes of car chases and crashes like a Hal Needham movie. I dont remember the comedy duo having too many good scenes together either but thats because the point is the music. This movie gets that point and seeing those I mentioned perform is what got me watching this and kept me watching.