This movie is an insult to the original Blues Brothers, which is one of the best movies ever made.
Its sad what money make people do. Arkroyd didn't have the right to do that. He should respect Belushi's memory.
Yeah, I agree!
shareStop bitching like a little baby. I loved the original too, but this hate for this movie is ridiculous and CHILDISH. It never was THAT terrible. It's like people whining about Bay's Transformers movie because "it destroyed their childhood love for the cartoon". Get over it.
Have a nice day.
Except Transformers actually succeeded at what it was trying to be. BB2K was a steaming pile of old, played-out *beep* Transformers was an entertaining, big effects, blockbuster movie and sought to be nothing more.
I think people's criticisms of BB2K cashing out on the old movie and Belushi's memory is completely legit. It's really sad to see Akroyd cheapen the Blues Brothers like this.
...Except the real Transformers was, like other cartoons being used to promote toys at the time, laden with subtle moral platitudes and "lessons" for the children. It is not a coincidence, for instance, that they called the leader of the good guys "Optimus Prime" and made a habit of illustrating his knowledge that intelligence counts for a lot in battle, not to mention his willingness to lead by example. (Oh, and the people who made these cartoons did this in order to deflect the criticism that the cartoons were basically 23-minute adverts for toys.)
Michael Bay's Transformers In Name Only is pretty much a summation of everything that is wrong with the man. No, Michael, you do not make movies for teenage boys. You make movies for morons.
In fact, the difference between The Blues Brothers and Blues Brothers 2000 is pretty much the same as the difference between The Transformers and Transformers In Name Only. The first is a celebration of something (the blues/the fact that children can and do learn deep and meaningful things from their entertainment even if they are not fully conscious of it). The second is a desecration of that same thing.
--mentalcritic
Tom Cruise drikk dovatn!
Actually I find it offensive when people trash a film and/or the film maker. Why do some pan a movie for not being what THEY want when in reality that same film makes more money in one day then the panner will see in their lifetime. You insult the film industry in general simply because you dare to post your ridiculous idea of a review. To ever believe you could give a true opinion of a movie is beyond comprehension. Transformers did at the box office what you will NEVER be able to do here...get a huge following.
And while Blues Brothers was a true classic in every sense of the word, Blues Bros 2000 was simply meant to be fun. It was not trying to imitate or compare to the original and it did not do either. But it was fun and many people enjoy the escapism of something that is just fun. I don't think Aykroyd was trying to slap Belushi's memory in any way. But he wanted to make a fun movie for his friend who was a fun loving guy who died too soon. For those that remember, the original was dumped all over when it first came out as just some stupid vehicle for two big comedy stars. Now it has reached cult status and has more fans then any who gave it bad reviews could hope to have.
You should always remember that very few films are ever considered classic or great when they are first released unless they actually bomb at the box office. Popular films are almost always destroyed by critics but go on to break money making records. And while BB2000 will never be considered a classic, or be as popular as its predecessor, it will still be remembered as a nice little tribute to a comic genius who I believe would have enjoyed it.
I would suggest to those of you who wish to condemn the movie that you should find another career because you will never be more than a critic wannabee.
For myself, I have added this film to my DVD library and every now and then enjoy watching again and hearing all the true musical talents that liked the script enough to make an appearance in the film. Could they possibly know something that many of you don't?
Hunk... I think its nice he pays a TRIBUTE to the original one, it's not that good but still it is not a sequel.
shareI think the main difference between the two films is the storyline, for this one it's fairly week. I mean, what was the main reason for putting the band back together, in the orginal it was to save the orphange, but in this one I can't see it. But it's good for one reason and that's the music, I mean what a lineup for the Louisiana Gator Boys, the only I didn't know was Tommy 'Pipes' Mcdonnell, when I went to see at the movies with some mates of mine I was like 'God, it's so and so' and one of my mates even laughed when I pointed out the drummer was Jack DeJohnette (being a big Jazz fan I know his work through Miles Davis).
shareWhile I'm not going to claim that it was well done, there was a point (in fact, somewhere in the older threads, there's one I started about five years ago on this very subject - correction: upon checking, it would appear that it is now the oldest thread on this board).
The point was meant to be obvious - but I guess it was so obvious that no one saw it for what it was. It's right there in the title: Blues Brothers 2000. The film was made in 1998, so the title doesn't really make sense unless you realize that the point of the movie is the survival of the Blues genre into the twenty-first century.
That's why Buster is an absolutely necessary part of the film - he starts off as a little jerk who doesn't care about anything, but, as the film goes on, Elwood introduces him to the Blues and Buster, by the end, starts to feel it himself. He IS the future of the Blues Brothers, and, thus, also of the Blues.
Note, also, that Elwood has a monologue (when the Bluesmobile runs out of gas) that just casts away any sense of subtlety and just tells the audience what the movie is about.
Bringing the Blues to the mainstream was always the point of the Blues Brothers - they were created in the era of disco, when Rhythm and Blues music was dying out. The Blues had been largely forgotten by the general public, and the Blues Brothers were a tribute to Aykroyd's (and, through his influence, Belushi's) love of the Blues. As the Blues Brothers gained in popularity, however, they realized that they had the power to revive the public's interest in the genre.
Listen to Briefcase Full of Blues - they say it there, too - they expected the Blues to die under the crushing weight of the over-synthesized music that was, and would remain, popular. Without them, it might well have done so. Blues Brothers 2000 made the mistake of putting that at centre stage and then filling out the rest of the movie with unfortunate echoes of the earlier film (the Russian mob instead of the Nazis, a right-wing militia group instead of the Good Ol' Boys), and the battle of the bands makes no thematic sense whatsowhoever, except as an exceptional gathering of musicians. Thematically, they just needed somewhere for the cops to catch up with them so Buster could prove that he was finally a real Blues Brother, and willing to go on the run.
The movie had a lot going for it - it could have been great, if only they'd started with a good story and let the themes speak through that story. Instead, we got a theme instead of a story and a bunch of set pieces and gags propping it up.
This is a great post Deekay723.... it appears your are the only poster in this thread who actually 'got it'
You jhave saved me the trouble of posting my thoughts, as you have put it together pretty good..
I have just watched the movie again. this time through a decent home theatre sound system... I know the script was npretty naff, but the essemble of great music artists putting it together at the end forgives all the sins of this film and is a great testament to these musicians, many of whom have since joined "The Ghost-Riders in the Sky".
... back to the music.. I think I'll go and listen to the soundtrack again...
cheers & beers
et tu, Bruté?
Locked my wire coat-hanger in the car - good thing that I always carry spare keys in my pocket :)
Great post Deekay - it's clear that you understand Film as well as Music.
I couldn't agree more. This movie should never have been made. It's a total sellout of the legendary original.
shareWhat memory? Had Belushi not idiotically drugged himself to death, there could be a proper Blues Brothers 2 and all would be well. But noooo, he had to go and waste himself. Just because he was funny at stage is no excuse.
As for THIS movie, I think the first scenes at the prison gates take care of problem the best possible way. Elwood finds his brother Jake died (maybe killed at last by Princess Leia), he is sad but what else he can do? get a new bluesmobile and form a new band.
Stupid Belushi. Its his fault. I'd *beep* on his grave if I could. And John Goodman rocks.
^ testify!
-
"You're all talk, Hamill! You never even finished Jedi school!"
[deleted]
I gotta agree with the OP. Blues Brothers 2000 is pi$$ poor.
It's totally flat, and woefully under-written.
Dan Akroyd acts like a plank of wood.
The first Blues Bothers film is pure class.
Still, like others have said, the music is cool.
The music is what the movie is about! Akroyd acted the same in this film as he did in the first. It's really more of a tribute to the original rather than a sequel, and in that aspect it is amazing.
Who are you?! I'm the Doctor!!
correction: this movie is AWESOME and a must-see
share