Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) User Reviews

There are much worse films than this.

[gateaholic · 6/10 · 6 October 2005]

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

Meant to be a Tribute Movie, but it's just a sequel

[mjw2305 · 5/10 · 16 February 2006]

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

It has its points

[ingemar-4 · 5/10 · 3 March 2005]

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?

It's worth it for the music and I think that was always the point.

[vonnoosh · 22 January 2021]

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.

Blues Brothers 2000? Slow and sloppy!

[jfett · 1/10 · 15 September 2000]

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.

Music, Music

[krukow · 3/10 · 4 October 1999]

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.

Yes, it really is THAT bad!!!

[chuckthomas69 · 1/10 · 11 March 2005]

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.

NOT a sequel, but a TRIBUTE!!

[Dengar · 7/10 · 28 February 2001]

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.

As a 10 star fan of the original, I gave this a 3!

[Petrinidesign · 3/10 · 17 November 2012]

It is plain as day that this movie was simply made to ride the coat tails of the original and "hope" and "PRAY" that everyone who loved the original would rush out to see this. I did and this was one of only 2 movies I've EVER walked out of!

The other movie I walked out of, The re-release of 'The Original Exorcist'. The only reason I walked out of that movie was because it scared the holy hell out of me. With that said, I guess 'The Blues Brothers 2000' did as well.

I love movies. Good, bad, B movies, block busters, I give them all a chance and enjoy with an open mind. This movie was almost an insult to movie goers the world over. And the budget for the film was decent! Almost $30 mil! But turning the blues brothers into zombies? Tossing in a kid for "family appeal"? And a car that is basically like night rider?

If you watch this movie at all, do yourself a favor and fast forward to the end. THE ONLY GREAT THING ABOUT THIS MOVIE.... Is the closing Battle Of The Bands. I'm not spoiling anything here. All I will say is the music is great and seeing all those amazing musicians made watching this over again, worth it. But like I said. Just fast forward to the end. For all the amazing movies big Dan has done, he definitely regrets letting his fans down with this pile of steaming Hollywood "hey they loved the original, lets make money with a remake" flop fest.

A guilty pleasure with great music

[Bored_Dragon · 7/10 · 20 March 2020]

"Blues Brothers 2000" recycles the original 1980 movie and acts more like a remake than a sequel. Almost the same cast performs variations on the scenes and jokes from the first film which, though technically not far behind the original, no longer have the edge and do not achieve the effect. The only major difference in the scenario is the over-the-top finale. This excursion into voodoo fantasy is somewhat entertaining, but it in no way fits in with the rest of the movie and turns it into a bad parody. Seen only from the angle of the script, the movie is redundant rubbish, but the movie is not just a screenplay. John Goodman, who "replaced" the late John Belushi, did a great job and his charisma is a big plus to this movie. Also, the sequel brings together a lot more top musicians than the original and delivers great tracks, so I simply can not bury it. While this soundtrack will always be overshadowed by the one from the first movie, the mere fact that the film brings together greats like B.B. King, Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett, James Brown, Eric Clapton, Bo Diddley, Isaac Hayes, Dr. John, Billy Preston, KoKo Taylor, Jimmie Vaughan, Steve Winwood, and others adds a few stars to my rating.

7/10

John Belushi must be spinning in his grave

[Kasady · 1/10 · 4 August 1999]

I pretty much guessed this movie would be bad. After all, seeing the Blues Brothers license sold out to 3 HORRIBLE Nintendo games was bad enough. Then this hits. Did Kim Henkel have something to do with this movie? Because it was the same thing as Texas Chainsaw Massacre:The Next Generation- a total rehash of the first with awful acting. We didn't need all of those special effects. In fact it seems anymore there must be a requirement for computer graphics to take up 80% of the scenery. As for the characters- Elwood was OUT OF CHARACTER! John Goodman, while has talent, needs to find a role other than "loser" in SOMETHING! The boy was a plot device we didn't need. The only thing saving this movie was a few cameos by original cast members. But John Lee Hooker and Ray Charles aren't here, and they're still alive last I checked. Most of the music scenes had no real purpose. And then there's the fact that Elwood is now a stuck up jerk who will lie to just about anyone. Take my advice and forget this movie ever happened. In fact, buy the original and avoid this. This deserves to be on MST3K.

Chill, Enjoy The Miusic And Laugh

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 26 February 2006]

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.

Not even nearly as good as the first one as a movie, but, oh that music!

[llltdesq · 6/10 · 13 September 2001]

As far as the movie goes, it is pretty lame. The main problem is obvious-Dan Ackroyd and John Goodman don't have the comic timing or rapport that Ackroyd and Belushi did. Not even close. But when yu look at the musicians involved-the Blues Brothers Band, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, the line-up that fills out the Louisiana Gator Boys, Jonny Lang, so many others I probably overlook, that's worth it alone. Buy the CD if it's available. As a movie, it would probably serve better if the negative were cut up and used for guita picks (except for most of the musical numbers). Music-10, movie-0

The worst sequel ever made

[jrrdube · 1/10 · 11 August 2011]

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.

How can ANYONE trash ARETHA?

[jwpeel-1 · 14 May 2004]

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.

Great Music, Horrible Sequel.

[AngstromStrongbeard · 3/10 · 24 April 2013]

The whole movie seemed like a throwback/tribute to the original. It didn't really try at all to stand on its own merits, it just came across as an excuse for the cast (most of whom were in the original) to relive the good ole' days. Most of the scenes and plot points mirrored those of the original film. Aside from that, the signature clothing (black suit, black fedora, sunglasses, etc.) and the Bluesmobile, this movie is almost unrecognizable from the original film.

Out of the two stars of the original, only Dan Aykroyd survived to make this film. (RIP John Belushi.) Unfortunately, Elwood Blues must have gone to the grave with Jake Blues, because Dan Aykroyd's reprisal of his role is disgraceful. Elwood's voice, accent, mannerisms, and overall attitude have totally changed...for the worse. A once mysterious, serious, resourceful, and charming character has been warped into a worthless goofball, and this change sets the tone for the rest of the movie as well.

The original movie, though very funny, had a serious tone to it (at least the performances seemed that way), but Blues Brothers 2000 is just goofy and cheesy. The only thing that I can compare the goofiness/cheesiness to is a kids movie...which makes sense since one of the main characters of this movie IS a kid, "Buster Blues". After visiting The Penguin from the original movie, Elwood gets stuck mentoring an orphan boy, Buster, who turns out to be a blues prodigy. Add John Goodman's equally goofy character, "Mighty" Mack McTeer, into the mix and you've got a recipe for disaster.

The only things that saves this movie from being a 0/10 are the outstanding musical sequences (with the exception of Johnny Lang's "contribution"). With the exception of John Belushi, the original band is reunited in this film and they do not disappoint! The Blues Brothers Band and the various cameos from famous musicians throughout the movie are reason enough to watch it. The final sequence, a Battle of the Bands contest, is particularly good.

To Summarize: the movie sucks, but the music is great! Watch it at least once, especially if you've seen the original.

The worst film ever.

[maybourne · 1/10 · 9 November 2004]

I can't believe how truly terrible this film was. The acting was atrociously wooden; the dialogue really awful and overall it was an abomination. I wasn't even expecting much as I'd heard it was bad, but I was hoping it would be fun or camp, or in the "So bad it's good" category. Unfortunately, it was just so bad it was bad. It was a real shame to see Dan Aykroyd doing this rubbish - he can't be that hard up! The only good thing about it was the music - but it really ISN'T worth putting yourself through the film just for the songs.

I can't believe how bad the acting was - it reminded me of Sabrina the Teenage Witch - which I like - but they just couldn't pull it off and it didn't work.

As much fun as an ingrown toenail

[saugoof · 2/10 · 29 December 2001]

I can't think of too many sequels that are nearly as good as the original. The list gets even smaller for sequels that topped the original. Now Blues Brothers 2000 is horribly bad, even for a sequel. It does serve as a good example of doing a sequel by numbers. First, it needs to have everything that made the original famous. Let's see, huge car chase, check. A great band that can't get a gig, check. Lots of ticked off people in pursuit of the band, check.

Second requirement, the sequel's plot must only deviate slightly from the original. The film "succeeds" here admirably with most of the best remembered jokes and character traits of the original repeated in ever so slightly modified form.

Like most sequels, this movie has no artistic merit whatsoever. It is strictly a cash-in only affair. John Landis hasn't had a success for some time and Dan Aykroyd hasn't had more than supporting roles for a while either. What they've done here however is production line fodder which, ironically for a movie about a blues band, has no soul in it at all.

Obviously this movie doesn't have John Belushi in it which means that one thing that made the first movie great, the interplay between him and Dan Aykroyd is missing here. Now I have a soft spot for John Goodman but it just doesn't work here. At least John Landis and Aykroyd didn't replace John with Jim Belushi, perish the thought. But then they decided to add two additional Blues Brothers, a police officer who during the movie discovers the blues and most annoyingly an 11 year old Blues Brother kid. Someone must have looked at the "Sitcom 101" manual and found in chapter 1, entitled "Kids are cute" the instruction that kids who do adult things are always cute and bring laughs. Well, just like in sitcoms, this turns out to be truly stomach turning.

The really sad thing about this movie is that it hammered home how far in front Hollywood puts making money instead of making great movies.

If absolutely nothing else, it did have a great soundtrack.

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 25 March 2006]

When "Blues Brothers 2000" came out, it got some of the worst reviews that I'd ever read (I don't remember whether this stemmed from the absence of John Belushi or not) and lasted about two weeks in the theaters. But it had a truly great soundtrack, starring just about every blues and rock 'n' roll singer alive at that time. Maybe the car pileup was ridiculous, but it was pretty funny. Overall, it was good that they didn't try to have different people play Jake and Curtis (and John Candy's character). New additions John Goodman and Joe Morton add interesting dimensions. As Dan Aykroyd reminds us several times throughout the movie: "The lord works in mysterious ways."

All the ingredients are there, but they didn't switch the oven on!

[alicante22 · 2/10 · 13 September 2006]

The original movie is, and will always be, among my favorites of all time.

Then, this comes along... for whatever reason, i never got around to going to the cinema to watch it. perhaps out of fear for it forever ruining the memory of the original. So it was only just last year that i managed to bring myself to watch this monstrosity of a movie. The premise was there, albeit with a very tenuous plot, and the main characters were all there from the original (with the obvious exception of John Belushi) and the musical set pieces were all there too, but something was still missing. I found myself fast forwarding through all the songs to get to the end as quickly as possible.

There just seemed to be a lack of any real interest in making a real sequel rather than just a re-hash of the original. This movie was almost just like a TV reunion of the original cast and just showing them do the original scenes out of interest to see if they could still do it.

If your memory of the original holds a place in your heart, then avoid this terrible mess of a sequel. And if you have seen this but not the original, then get yourself to the store and buy a copy to show you how it should be done!

NOT AS GOOD AS THE ORIGINAL, BUT NOT A BAD SEQUEL!

[therobsterman · 7/10 · 5 October 2000]

BLUES BROTHERS 2000 was a little too fast and simple, but the music and the inclusion of John Goodman was really good. This is basically a spin-off of the original, which I don't mind at all... so my final score is a big 7/10

A tremendous whumping stinkwad of a movie

[knsevy · 1/10 · 3 September 2002]

I generally don't make headers like the above. If I see a great number of people have already made the same comments about a film that I would, I generally forego adding my own to the pile. No matter how dismal a film might be, I generally don't give anything a rating of '1'.

This movie drove me to do all three.

If you watch it in the context of a sequel to the original film, it's offensive. If you take it on its own merits, it's just appalling.

The blatant token inclusion of a black actor (part of the innate fun of the REAL Blues Brothers was the fact that they were both uncool white guys), the addition of the kid to add cutesy appeal (wherefore cutesy appeal from a BLUES band?) and the moronic subplot with the militia and the Russian mafia (Illinois Nazis I buy. THIS I do not) are only a partial list of the offenses committed by this steaming pile of cinematic excrement.

The extensive use of the impossible (Ghost Riders in the sky, zombifying people, transformations into rats) made this seem like a nasty parody of the original film, which, while it did take a few short detours into the realm of 'no way' (the backwards car flip), generally confined its antics to the at-least-theoretically-possible realm. That allowed the viewer to suspend their disbelief enough to either allow for these crossovers or at least snicker at their impossibility and accept it as part of the Blues' Brothers charmed quest. Here, it makes a bad thing worse. And then Paul Shaffer comes slouching in. He DOES belong in the movie (most of the Blues Brothers albums feature him on keyboard, not Murphy Dunne), but his over-the-top performance makes him seem like the Frenchmen in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Except not funny.

And I just wanna STRANGLE that stupid kid.

If I describe this movie any more fully, I will be forced to use words that will disqualify my review from the IMDB. So I will end with this thought:

Dan Akroyd, you're a fine actor. John Goodman, so are you. And the Hindenberg's pilots were the best in the world.

Astounding music and car chases

[bobbybillions · 8/10 · 9 July 2008]

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.

A Great Full-of-Life Feelgood Comedy Sequel & i like it way more than the First film!!!! So much Heart & Soul here.

[lukem-52760 · 7/10 · 30 May 2021]

I liked the original Classic 1980 Film "The Blues Brothers" but i was never really into it as it felt more like a musical than a proper movie to me but this 90's Sequel is a much better film in my opinion with a good story & the inclusion of the great John Goodman is better!!!

So much heart & soul here how can anyone not like this movie?

I never grew up on John Belushi (R. I. P) i know he's a comic legend & Aykroyd's best friend but i did grow up with John Goodman with the Classic Arachnophobia (1990) among other stuff, so Goodman made this film better or atleast to me. Elwood gets the band back together after being released from a long stint in prison & finding out his brother Jake (John Belushi) has died, there's a sadness there to the first scenes but then Elwood decides to find his place again in the world & get back to enjoying life again.

The critics hated this sequel but i never listen to them anyway & i usually love the films they hate so who cares?

Anyway Dan Aykroyd is a true childhood hero of mine. I've been into Aykroyd since i was tiny & first saw my all time favourite movie ever at the cinema GHOSTBUSTERS 2 back in 1989!!!! I was about 5 & still remember it & that was my first ever Cinema experience & set in motion my absolute love for GHOSTBUSTERS 2 & Dan Aykroyd. Yes i grew up with the first Classic Ghostbusters film too on video but like Blues Brothers 2000, i prefer the sequel over the original.

Dan Aykroyd is a comic genius & total legend of Cinema & the actor that made me love movies. I grew up on lots of his films such as Ghostbusters 1&2, Spies Like Us, Trading Places, The Great Outdoors, Coneheads, Dragnet, My Girl, Celtic Pride, My Stepmother is an Alien, Sneakers & more!!!! Aykroyd means alot to me.

Blues Brothers 2000 is such a feelgood flick with a great cast & great songs but has a decent good guys vs bad guys story behind with Elwoood going up against the Russian mafia to help out his friends & a cross country chase to escape them & the cops. Yes similar to the first film but with a more action-packed feel to it & absolutely beautiful cinematography & great chemistry between Aykroyd & Goodman. The huge sets are beautiful too especially the huge Voodoo witch Queen set in Louisiana, stunning. There's a nice fantasy feel to this sequel that i dig & that's with most Aykroyd films, another reason i love the dude & his films.

A great sequel & a great Action comedy with a superb soundtrack throughout!!!!

Great entertainment & great fun.

Only for the blues

[apararas · 4/10 · 18 November 2019]

After 18 years Aykroyd revives the myth of the Blues Brothers but without Jake.Some laughs good music but if you love the first one you'll hate this.