|Page 1 of 21:||          |
|Index||205 reviews in total|
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
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.
Here's another film in which I totally go against the critics - both
professional and on this board, who take themselves too seriously at
times. They hated this sequel to "The Blues Brothers," but I enjoyed it
very much. They need to chill a bit and realize the purpose of this
film: simply a tribute to the music.
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.
Plus, it was simply a funny movie with two funny guys - 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 and over-the-top story all add up to two hours of lamed-brained fun. No, this isn't Shakespeare and it wasn't mean to be. It's a much nicer-edged movie than the first Blues Brothers, too. Unfortunately, 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 laughs, and, hopefully, you'll enjoy it.
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
I found Ackroyd to be completely horrible. He looked more like Joe Friday
than Elwood Blues. His Chicago accent was forced, the dialog moved through
at a horribly slow pace. There was absolutely zero comic timing in this
movie. Every scene in the movie, including the musical numbers, took too
long-from Elwood talking to the Penguin, to the Car chases-long shots of
police cars-to the car-under-the-water routing-to the 50 car pile up that
seemed to take 10 minutes.
The musical numbers-the lifeblood of the original-were completely devoid of soul. Aretha Franklin's lip-syncing in particular was horrible. Matt Guitar Murphy looked more like a broken down old man than the body-builder he did in the original. Who could believe that the `Dunn and Cropper' radio talk show could possibly exist when they both seemed to be reading off of cue cards the entire movie?
The things that we funny and subtle in the first film-Elwood's parking ability, Jake's transformation at the hands of Reverend Cleophus, the miracle performance of the Bluesmobile, the new jobs of the former band members, were hackneyed and overdone in this film.
The lack of energy from the band, though, is the coffin nail for this film.
They perform with such little life that CGI animation of a skeleton riding a skeletal horse over the stage has to be imposed during their rendition of `Ghost Rider.' This comes from the same Blues Brothers band that made the theme to Rawhide sound like a hit twenty years ago.
Finally, the movie seems too bright and too clean. The original took place at night for the most part, and seemed dungier. This film is shiny and clean and that just doesn't feel right. The new Bluesmobile didn't even look right until Elwood littered up the dashboard with trash, and-get this-the cigarette lighter worked!
Other fatal flaws: dumbing-down Elwood Blues, inserting a kid into the cast, having Elwood eat something other than dry, white toast, the shaving-cream-ball schtick, no SCMODS, no lines like `Man, I haven't been pulled over in six months.' All the jokes hit you in the face-like they all have to be explained. Complete bomb.
Who cares about the plot? There wasn't one. The best thing about this movie is the top notch music and performers. Having all those folks in one film is incredible. A hundred years from now, this film would be a great case study of the R & B, Soul, and Blues of this time. And this tease.stay after the final credits, and you will be greatly rewarded. For this type of film I wish there was 2 scoring systems, one for the plot and the other for the music.
I have to admit that some parts of this movie were clever indeed. It was cool that they tied in the deaths of John Belushi and Cab Calloway into the movie's plot, making the characters they played dead as well. If Jim Belushi took the part of Joliet Jake, that would have been a disaster. Still, the plot of this movie could have used some serious work. For instance, in the original movie, the Blues Brothers (a) were actually brothers and (b) were on an actual "mission from God". Their goal was to make some honest money to save an orphanage from shutting down, while trying to flee from the police at the same time. The movie brought back blues legends such as Aretha Franklin and James Brown back into the spotlight, and it helped contribute to the death of disco. Eighteen years later, Jake's dead, Cab Calloway's dead, the orphanage has been shut down, so why are they being chased by the police? Because a half brother of Elwood got p***ed off at finding his real past? The kid, I must add, was a nice touch, and it was cool to see twice as many blues legends in this movie, including some new artists like Johnny Lang and Erykah Badu. But there should have been a better plot, because it seemed as though the Blues Brothers Band were going from event to event for the hell of it. Where's the plot in that? Police, leave these guys alone. The big mistake in this movie was its attempt to outdo the original movie. The music was great, and I highly recommend buying the soundtrack. However, don't expect to see a plot in this story. Otherwise, enjoy.
The only way this film can not be awe inspiring is if you watch it on a 10" black and white TV with a 4 watt sound system. Maybe that's a bit extreme, but I watched this on a 70" projection screen and 7.2 pristine and precise surround sound. I have seen this film at least 20 times and get the same pleasure from it each time. Aretha Franklin's voice and the musical abilities of almost the entire cast would carry any film, but this one doesn't need it. The story might not be completely developed (euphemism) but the Russian mobsters and GI Joes scenes are gutbustingly funny. Also, for anyone who has ever listened to "modern" music and wondered where the world was going to, Dan Akroyd's motivational speech is something to behold. Although I never expected to say this, because I'm a non-religious person, the gospel choir's rendition of "John the Revelator" sends shivers down your spine. I love this film, and would recommend it to anyone who likes good music.
This is one of the few movies I have ever seen which actually made me
angry... not just disappointed, mind you, but downright furious! No one
expected this film to live up to the classic original, but for a sequel
to fall this far short of the mark is just plain insulting. This
cinematic ipecac fails on just about every possible level; the worst
failure being that is just no fun to watch! Instead, it made me
uncomfortable and a little embarrassed for the people on the screen.
And for those who are confused by the fact that some people have rated this movie very highly, notice that the majority of positive reviews focus on the music. Yes, I love the Blues, and this movie features some good numbers, but GOOD MUSIC DOES NOT MAKE A GOOD MOVIE!! If you want to hear the tunes, by all means get the soundtrack CD. Or simply fast-forward through the lame dialog, wooden acting, and ridiculous plot to watch the music scenes. But I highly discourage anyone who liked the original Blues Brothers from wasting their time on this crassly commercial, soulless, and painfully unfunny movie. ...But that's just my opinion.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If this movie was not a sequel of one of the best cult movies of the past 30+ years, it would just a dumb movie, the fact it is is just an insult to the memory of the original cast members who passed away. I originally saw the movie when it was released on VHS, and rented the movie for $3, in the late 90's, and I felt ripped off beyond belief. I just recently rewatched the movie, and I feel just stupid for doing so. The movie is even worse the second time around. There are no redeeming qualities, or performances, to save the movie, which has a dumbass plot, and is just boring to watch. The whole 'feud' with the russians is like what a 2 year old would do, and shows early on what a disaster the movie is. The ending is pointless, driving off into the horizon with the cops chasing. Seems like no one knew how to end the movie so they went the brainless way out, at least the first movie showed what happens when you fool with the cops, you become the prison band, which made the end of the original excellent. The only thing they could have worked is have James take over John's role, because the explanation of Jake's death is soooo stupid it's insulting. In the trivia to this movie, it says the movie was ranked 4th, out of 25, worst sequels, I would like to know what was worse than this? I would have said it IS the worst. Even giving this movie a "1" seems like a compliment, but they should add a vote of "Avoid at all costs", because this is the case for this flop. I am really disappointed with Dan Ackroyd, he is almost always good, and this movie looks like he was asleep at the wheel.
|Page 1 of 21:||          |
|Newsgroup reviews||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|