MovieChat Forums > Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) Discussion > If you are questioning whether or not to...

If you are questioning whether or not to see this movie...

posted 16 years ago by m300lg
21 replies | jump to latest

While it is not exactly the first movie and is perhaps not even as good as the first movie, it is a good addition to The Blues Brothers. It is made by just about all of the same people as the first movie, so they know what they are doing. There are some parts where you may not be satisfied, maybe, but it has all of the same heart and essence of the first movie. It is funny and fun, and I enjoyed it very much. Really, don't judge it until you see it, because it has gotten some bad reviews which it doesn't warrant. It is a lot more like the first movie than many people make it out to be.

[–] hotcupofjava-1 16 years ago

EXACTLY!!!!!!!

[–] nephihaha 16 years ago

"It is a lot more like the first movie than many people make it out to be."

Too like it in fact. It rips off the jokes from the first one, and flattens them.

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

Exactly. It is a carbon copy, and a bad one. It has NOT the heart of the first one. The first one had fresh ideas and was groundbreaking on so many ways, it had lots of energy and anarchistic humour and style. Blues Brothers 2000 tried to copy that but failed. It had no original plot nor jokes. The story lacked the energy as much as Akroyd and Goodman did. The only thing that was new was this annoying kid that was totally out of place. Most of all, the movie was set 18 years later. That means it lacks the entire flair of the early 80's which was essential to the first part. 1998 just doesn't fit to rhytm&blues.

Seriously, I am not even sure if Belushi could have save this movie if he was still alive in 1998.

[–] nephihaha 16 years ago

I don't think Belushi would have done this film. Well, then again, he could have become totally washed up, and done it out of desperation, but there you go.

I felt that there were some good actors in this, such as John Goodman, and Nia Peeples, but that there were "in the wrong place, at the wrong time." (to borrow a phrase from Dr John, who was in the same position at the end of this film)

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

Oh, Goodman did well, he just didn't have much to work with and suffered from everything I wrote above. Sometimes you have the right ingriedients but just screw up mixing them.

[–] nephihaha 16 years ago

Goodman was miscast. He was one of the better performers, but the role and dialogue wasn't quite right for him.

[–] vinsond21 15 years ago

I don't know what is the fuss over John Belushi, i never could stand him and hated the first movie because of him. This sequel is so much better.

[–] nephihaha 15 years ago

I suppose if you hate Belushi, then you dislike the first film - goes without saying - but he definitely was one of the creators of the Blues Brothers. Goodman's character is obviously supposed to be a replacement for him in a way.

[–] Littlebitsofgaming 15 years ago

I don't think Belushi would have done this film.

Nope, he would have done films like this instead....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082801/

Belushi's career was already going downhill after BB, due to his drug abuse, etc.
A film like BB 2000 would have saved his carrer.

As a side note, when Dan wrote the original script for BB, it came in way too long for 1 film. So it was broken up into 3 films. There would have been more BB films if they had the chance to make them. A lot of the material let over was used for BB 2000.
Also, Dan wrote Ghostbusters for himself and John to star in...how would that have turned out?

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he is God.

[–] shalnabs 14 years ago

Having been in the Saturday Night Live studio audience the night the Blues Brothers were first introduced (thought it was just another skit), I instantly became a life-long fan. As I recall, Belushi did not look at his part as Jake as just another role, but became a student of the Blues and eventually thought of himself as a serious Blues artist (listen to Briefcase Full of Blues and you'll find it hard to dispute). I'd like to think that if Belushi were still alive, he would have made several more recordings as Jake Blues, be it solely for musical recordings or movie roles. The man was immensely talented - still miss him.

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

You talk about this movie being a carbon copy of the first one.

And the funny thing is that Ghostbusters 2 Is EXACTLY a carbon copy of the first one...

It's like Dan is just able to make one great, really great movie and then when it comes to making the sequels he just gives up and remakes the first one copying most of what worked for the first movies.

Really if you watch Ghostbusters 2, everything that happens in the first one happens in the second one act by act.

[–] puschit-1 11 years ago

The difference being here that I thoroughly enjoyed Ghostbusters 2, copy or not. It wasn't a masterpiece but not bad either. Blues Brothers 2000 on the other hand ... well, let's put it this way: When I was watching it with my GF I started doing chores because I was so bored.

[–] reaseltbim 11 years ago

but is the same principle. Dan makes a Good first movie and then for a sequel he just copies everything good from the first one.

The funny thing is that the proof is in both GB2 and This movie

[–] psyclone72 15 years ago

For true fans of the original, this movie can be pretty painful in places. This one is worth seeing if you treat it like some extended TV special, but it's not the experience the original film was. I think the musical performances were BY FAR the best parts of this movie, which were certainly not as good as the original.

[–] Rani_Senka 15 years ago

personally i enjoy almost everything with dan aykroyd in it, i think he has his own charms even in a bad movie (50 first dates is a good example) and i thought this movie was a good fun ride, though it doesn't measure up to the original, no sequel movie ever does. so cut out the bitching and give this movie a break.

-

"You're all talk, Hamill! You never even finished Jedi school!"

[–] Lady_Luck1 15 years ago

I like it. I enjoy everything with Dan Aykroyd in it. This movie is still a good one, I enjoy it. This has so many good things going for it in this film, and wasn't made to be identical to the original Blues Brothers movie. It's nice they had most of the originals from the first Blues Brothers. Both hilarious films.

*"The light was yellow, sir". -Elwood Blues.*

[–] dogsoldier_spoon-1 14 years ago

I agree, it may not be as good as the original (not even close to be honest) but it was still a decent movie with a great soundtrack and good performers. If this is one of the worst movies you've seen - as many people on this board complain - than you should really consider yourself lucky, cause I've seen far far worse than this one. It was an entertaining enough movie.

[–] LocoHero 14 years ago

A dog came along, ate the original film, and excreted out Blues Brothers 2000.

[–] jorgito2001 12 years ago

Thanks for the comment OP! I was at Universal Studios in Orlando this past weekend & watched the Blues Brothers Chritmas show & got me in the mood to rewatch the original (which i did yesterday), never seen the sequel, but I have it reserved at the library! My expectations are on the floor, so here's hoping I get something positive out of it...if at least the music, which was awesome in the original!!!

--
I'm your average ordinary everyday, jorgeegeetooo!

[–] jackg11228 11 years ago

We are lucky to have this movie, as opposed to not. James Brown, Wilson Pickett, Sam Moore, etc. But most of all Dan Aykroyd puts this giant show together and never hogs the spotlight. Thank you Dan. I read his bio, and he is a true asset to the entertainment industry. This movie was meant to be fun. And it is.