Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

jbar19 I had tons of expectations because I love the originalAnd this movie isn't in the same league. But its been 18 years and 3 major members of the original cast have passed away.....Dan Aykroyd is an amazing writer, but many times he needs someone to edit out his more outlandish ideas. Ghostbusters originally was darker and had teams of paranormal investigators traveling through time and to alternate dimensions. In this movie, there wasn't anyone to pare away some of Dan's weird and extraneous ideas. Consequently, there is some stuff that just seems weird and out of place. Like a magical Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats...The Good 1) AMAZING, Blues performers - Holy Crap, the number of top Blues musicians and singers is legendary. 60 years from now, people are going to be watching the musical performances on Youtube and wonder who the hell was able to get almost EVERY blues legend on the same stage at once. 2) Almost everyone from the original comes back. Including the great Katheryn Bigelow as the Nun. 3) Stays true to the original in scope and tone. It still feels like the same atmosphere and world of the first one. "My Watch Broke!" "God works in mysterious ways" etc.The Bad 1) The characters of Cab and Mighty Mac are worthless and don't add much to the story. Mighty Mac barely sings and doesn't add anything. Cab at least was Curtis' son so he belongs there, but he really doesn't add much. The Kid could have worked better if he was a harmonica prodigy from the start (Instead the Kid picks up a harmonica during a live performance and figures out he is a natural. How convenient) The Russians and the White Supremacists are also barely used and have no screen time. Why bother? 2) Supernatural Elements - OK the first movie had some supernatural stuff, but we knew it was God was protecting them. Now, we have a Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats?! Someone should have been there to edit out Aykroyd's more crazy stuff. 3) Lack of Mission - The first one they were desperate to save their orphanage. They were driven. In this one, they are just a band trying to get back together. There is a small subplot where Elwood is supposed to help rehabilitate the Kid but it wasn't explored very much. 4) More of an Emphasis on the music than on the comedy - This isn't necessarily a bad thing but while the second movie has more music, it is not as funny.I read where this movie was rated as the fourth worst sequel of all time. It does not deserve that. It's a good movie and, after reading the reviews, much better than expected. The original Blues Brothers was one of the best movies of the last 50 years. At least this sequel didn't screw things up.

John Waclawski I'm a huge fan of the first movie. Love the music & the acting & overall pace of the first movie. I went into BB2k with an open mind knowing it got bad reviews & for the most part was not good. I was quite pleasantly surprised. If you go into this movie expecting a huge sequel, you will be disappointed. I wasn't expecting a huge sequel. I was expecting exactly what I got. A fun movie. I liked the music, not as much as the original, but it was still fun music. High action and a lot of funny scenes that I rewound several times to watch again. Lots of guest stars you have to pay close mind to and I caught myself remembering each older band member as they were back in the 80's. Thinner, less or no grey hair and more involved with the movie instead of just being "The Band". They tried to relive scenes from the original that, although not done well, I saw what they did there. The acting is on par with this kind of movie. I didn't expect Brando or anything like that. I expected exactly what was delivered. And to read that Akroyd & Landis were forced to make the movie in a way that did not suit them, only the execs, tells me that although the movie could have been better, their hands were tied & they did the absolute best they could.I gave the movie a 8 out of 10 stars. Subtract one star because you don't know what happened to Jake. Although really not important to the movie plot, it would be nice to know.Subtract one more star, "for general purpose". I don't believe in 10 out of 10 stars in movies. At least not yet.So go in watching this movie with an open mind and know they are just trying to ride the wave that is called "movie sequels". When it came out in 1998...even then I knew it wouldn't do well. But yet I still enjoyed the movie thoroughly.

MaximumMadness The best way to describe the 1998 sequel "Blues Brothers 2000" is this: If the original 1980 classic was like hearing a really good joke told by a classic stand-up comedian with perfect timing and conviction, "Blues Brothers 2000" is like hearing that same joke re-told by a friend with far less charisma. Sure, the humor may still be there. Maybe even a little bit of the charm. But it's just nothing compared to the original, and it does lose a lot in translation.It's too much of a re-telling of the original film, to the point that the label of "sequel" is an almost inaccurate term to describe it. It's startlingly close to venturing into "remake" territory. That being said, it's not without its strengths, and I do feel it's nowhere near the abomination and train-wreck that many make it out to be.John Landis returns to direct this sequel, in addition to co-writing the script with star Dan Aykroyd. To make up for the absence of John Belushi and Cab Calloway, several newcomers are added to the film, including John Goodman, Joe Morton and J. Evan Bonifant.18 years after the original film, Elwood Blues (Aykroyd) is finally released from prison, only to discover that his brother Jake and mentor/father-figure Curtis have both passed away. Seeking guidance, Elwood becomes a mentor to "Buster" (Bonifant), a 10-year-old boy, and seeks out Curtis' illegitimate son Cabel Chamberlain (Morton), whom doesn't take well to the news that his true father was a man his mother had an affair with. After re-uniting with his former drummer, meeting a talented singer named Mack McTeer (Goodman) and running afoul of Russian gangsters, Elwood and the gang decide to re-unite their band to perform again.The film, to its credit, does have a number of strengths.The performances are a lot of fun. Aykroyd does come off as a slightly different character in this film, but I was able to go with it, as Elwood is 18 years older and contending with a different part of his life, dealing with loss and new beginnings. Goodman steals the show, though. His character "Mighty" Mack is arguably a surrogate and replacement for the late John Bellushi, but Goodman makes the role his own and has a lot of fun making the character different... someone who is not born a "Blues Brother", but adopts the persona. Bonifant is a talented child-actor, and he does his best, but the role of Buster is a bit on the poorly-written side, and it feels like too much of a jumping- the-shark gimmick to add a child to the mix. But he does a good job. And Joe Morton is great as Cabel "Cab" Chamberlain, who is in pursuit of Elwood for much of the film, but may end up joining him under the right circumstances.The music is also fantastic. Much like the original film, the plethora of song-and-dance numbers are perfect, and all feature good, old- fashioned choreography and imagery. They are the one part of the film that easily lived up to the original, if not slightly exceeded it.And beyond that, many of the jokes do work, particularly an uproariously funny recall of the "car pileup" sequence from the original movie that plays like a deranged cartoon.Those things being said, this is not a good film. It has just as many flaws as strengths, and due to the high quality of the original masterpiece, those weaknesses do stand out even more.As mentioned above, I view the main problem of the film as its insistence to feel less like a sequel and more like a remake. I felt that too much of the film was devoted to references, callbacks, and even entire scenes lifted almost directly from the original. There are moments where this can work (the opening scene outside of the prison, the car-pileup, etc.) in more subtle ways or in ways that cause the film to do the opposite of the original. But this movie doesn't do that. This movie simply tries to constantly point out how similar it is to the first film, no matter how contrived or bizarre it may feel as a result. And when the film just isn't as well put together (as is in the case with this film's script), it makes it seem a lot worse than it is.It also has a wide array of smaller issues with the tone, style and writing beyond the above issue. It feels far more sanitized stylistically, both due to the lower PG-13 rating and just because I believe Aykroyd and Landis were different people when they made this film. It's too... "clean." Especially with the addition of a child- actor, which felt like too much of an attempt to soften the material and appeal to the family crowds that the prior film clearly wasn't going for. I also found that many scenes felt jarringly out of place or cartoonish. Even though the first film had a lot of religious imagery and toyed with things like breaking the laws of physics and the whole "mission from God"... In this film, all of the more over-the-top ideas feel more random and it doesn't gel as well. (Including a bizarre scene where, without spoiling anything, a character appears to lifted from a church and transformed by heavenly light, or another scene in which a Voodoo Priestess exhibits various supernatural powers) It doesn't quite work.Those complaints being said, the music is fantastic and the acting is a lot of fun for the most part. And I do think this is a fundamentally entertaining film (albeit also fundamentally flawed) for those reasons, and nowhere near the atrocity some have made it out to be. "Blues Brothers 2000" gets an average 5-out-of-10 for me. See it for the music and try to ignore the rest.

Steve Pulaski If a sequel to the iconic 1980's film The Blues Brothers needed to be made, I would've much rather seem John Goodman assume the role of Jake Blues, the chubby and talky half of the Blues brothers rather than watch an overlong, padded out tribute film to the group, involving the surviving half of the brothers, Elwood, desperately try to get the old band back together in an effort to keep the blues alive. There is an uncanny stench of desperation from the screen as the obligatory sequel plot takes fold and sadly consumes the iconic trail the original 1980's classic paved.I recall my original review of The Blues Brothers with dread upon viewing its unnecessary sequel. I stated, "there are two car chases that could very well rank in some of the best ever executed in film. Police cars topple each other, one after another, and the film knows when to start and when to end them," and conclude with, "The Blues Brothers is a fun, energized comedy that starts fast and rarely lets up in terms of comedy and music. It's a Chicago classic and one of the funniest and smartest musical comedies I have yet to see." The sequel takes all the fun out of its formula and replaces it with wasted energy. There's nothing here that couldn't have been simply put on a soundtrack and left at that.Dan Aykroyd reprises his role as Elwood, as he tries so hard to make new friendships, one of which involving a ten year old orphan named Buster (J. Evan Bonifant), who he takes along upon learning of his rather somber roots at the orphanage Jake and Elwood were raised in and saved from being demolished in the original film. He learns that Buster has a talent for playing the harmonica and gives him a slick suit and shades to join in the revival band. Elwood also recruits Mack McTeer (played by John Goodman), a bartender from a new strip club he has just found out about, and Cab (Joe Morton), the illegitimate son of an old friend who is initially bitter and cold towards the idea of a band but soon can not refuse.One of the strongest moments is the three minute long musical rendition of Wilson Pickett's "634-5789," about a phone number, when dialed, will connect the lonely caller to attractive women who will provide them with a good time. If only they saw who was really working the phone lines. For every infectious dance sequence we get, we get an endless amount of stale comedy littered with unimpressive jokes and redundant banter. The musical numbers are the saving grace here but, again, that's what soundtracks are for.It's hard to say exactly where Blues Brothers 2000 goes wrong. It seems to have all the working components for a sequel to the original film. It is written by Aykroyd himself and John Landis (who again assumes the director role), two men who should know the material better than any soul, and we can see they desperately tried to work around the deaths of co-workers John Belushi, Cab Calloway, and John Candy in order to make a sequel work, and John Goodman seems as good as anyone to proudly boast the suit and glasses, yet the pieces do not fit like they're supposed to. This is more of a tribute film rather than a direct sequel.I'll end this on a rather loose comparison; if the original Blues Brothers film was Hall and Oates, then Blues Brothers 2000 is the Hall and Oates cover band that's biggest gig is open mic night down at the town pub. They may not be too painful, but hell, it just ain't the real thing.Starring: Dan Aykroyd, John Goodman, J. Evan Bonifant, Joe Morton, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, B. B. King. Directed by: John Landis.