Blues Brothers 2000 Reviews

Page 1 of 83
Super Reviewer
½ May 23, 2014
Sequel to the awesome Blues Brothers, manages to recycle aspects of the original and deliver something quite decent, but never great. I enjoyed the film, but it lacked the special quality that made the original so memorable and fun. This sequel suffers the same fate of all other sequels, it's a movie that tries to outdo its predecessor, but relies too much on the original for its material. This follow up has its moments, but it's nothing memorable or truly worthwhile. This is the type of movie that is worth seeing only once, and it's a movie that is a bit too predictable as well. Blues Brothers 2000 is a film that could have been great, but it lacks anything to really make it stand out. Fans of the original will be disappointed in this film, and since the fact that Belushi died two years after the release of the original, and he was a key ingredient in the success of the original, his absence make this one not that entertaining. However, there are a few enjoyable moments, but it's another one of those sequels that fails to really build upon the original, and it's a film that since its predecessor is so iconic, it's truly hard to beat. With this follow up, they did what they could do best in trying to make something work, but throughout the film, you'll constantly feel that something's missing, and due to the fact that it uses old ideas, there are more weak points that strong point. I don't think it's an awful film, but it is a movie that doesn't make an impression either. Enjoyable at time, tedious at times, Blues Brothers 2000 just feels tiresome, and if you're expecting a great movie like the original, you'll be disappoint, and you're only going to get a mildly decent affair that could have been better as well.
Super Reviewer
½ November 3, 2011
Facts about "Blues Brothers 2000".
*First: The Blues Brothers, is a terrific film, that looks perfect in his way. A unforgatable cult film which will be in the minds of a lots of fans.
* Second: Make a sequel is not gonna be better or remmember the first or at least make a homage to Belushi and Calloway.
* Third: They make a sequel.
* Fourth: Is suchs, have some nice scenes and good music... but don't compensate.
* Fifth: Is rotten.
Super Reviewer
½ March 4, 2011
I love the first film, its one of my top ten favorite films. The second - well, as we all know, we don't have John Belushi with us anymore, which is one strike right there. The filmmakers made the good choices of John Goodman and Joe Morton as backup singers. Had they stopped there, the film would have been much better.

Instead, a kid was thrown into the mix. An orphan, of course. Awwww. Elwood Blues is supposed to act as mentor for the kid (Buster), but forgets to return Buster to the orphanage, getting half the cops in the country and several mean orphanage workers on his tail.

Now, the whole point of the first Blues Brothers film is that these guys can't stay out of trouble. The character of Elwood, with or without Brother Jake, is going to get himself in it up to his eyeballs. The whole story about Elwood being chased for kidnapping is ludicrous. Elwood is going to get in trouble for one thing or another. It didn't have to be kidnapping.

Thus, we end up listening to a prepubescent kid squalling the lines of a damned good song, one that was belted out by three fine singers (Aykroyd, Goodman, and Morton), thus ruining the whole effect. It's no wonder that the Blues Brothers lost the Battle of the Bands - I'd have booed them offstage for bringing a kid into the mix.

There's an cloying, aren't-we-cute gushiness about Buster and his little Blues Brothers outfit that almost gags me. I loved the musical numbers and all the guest artists - and what an impressive group they are! - so I can't understand why the filmmakers would drag down the storyline by introducing a kid, and throwing in all the clichés associated with a small child interacting with adults. The kid is just needless baggage. He's (supposedly, though I see no evidence of it) a good singer. He gives a pep talk at the crucial time. He's easy to bond with. It just doesn't work.

This of course had a hard to getting to screen with studio " notes" such Buster being one of them and the other wanting a pg-13 rating which to me totally took the life out of the film and made it to lite.. I do really blame Landis or Aykroyd for the faults with this film. I've heard time and time again about how the dealing with a studio who has no clue about the audience for a film can screw it up. Also not the worst sequel ever made despite what some will tell you. Not even close. See Highlander 2 if you wanna see the worst sequel ever made.

In the end I like the film will watch it for the music and for Elwood's highly inventive method of parallel parking
Super Reviewer
½ May 21, 2009
Another glorious piece of blues, soul and funk melded together with a poor plot that just rips the original almost word for word. The cast are all old and fat and the acting is just as bad haha but the musical numbers and performances are again stunning, as said in my review of the original this is almost historical due to the performances alone.

Great fun if you like the music and some excellent one off 'stage' shows make this worth your time despite it being a shit film in terms of an actual film

Its for the music only people ;)
Super Reviewer
½ October 11, 2008
A typical old musical movie with a different taste of music... The music played in this movie were great, they're all lovely and easy listening... The performance from Dan Aykroyd and John Goodman were pretty good, they make the movie more alive.. But I get a little disappointed and confused with the story... It's too simple, but kinda weird... After all, I didn't make it to the ending because I'm too sleepy...
Super Reviewer
½ December 18, 2006
In this follow-up to be 1980 comedy, the accent this time is on the music. Featuring a mind-boggling assemblage of blues and R&B greats, it serves not only as homage to the late Junior Wells but also as an earpleasing celebration of one of America's few original art forms. From Aretha Franklin's reprise of her classic "Respect" to an eye-popping all-star finale jam featuring practically every notable performer in the blues and R&B fields, it's a real treat for fans of the music.
Super Reviewer
May 4, 2007
This sub-par sequel is really just a "re-imagining" of the original, existing only as an excuse for the musical numbers (which are great), instead of a celebration of the music, as in the original. Sad, really. And the zombie sequence is in poor taste, I thought.
Super Reviewer
January 27, 2007
Fun. It had a weak plot but the music was great and it had some funny parts.
Super Reviewer
December 28, 2006
Tiresome cash-in and virtual remake of the original. Sadly, no Belushi who is "replaced" by John Goodman who has little to work with, and an irritating child. Some reasonably well handled set pieces though.
Super Reviewer
November 9, 2006
Not a bad movie.
Super Reviewer
½ September 8, 2006
Good god. How could this have gone so wrong. the absence of John Belushi is obviously a big hit but still this could have been better. Instead it decides to be some kind of family film and adds one of the most irritating child actors of all time. Goodman is okay but he isn't a blues brother. The comedy is missing and by the end it is just a rehashed, confused, and stupid version of the original.
Super Reviewer
January 10, 2013
Dan Aykroyd and John Landis get the band back together for the reunion film Blues Brothers 2000. Less of a sequel and more of a remake, the story is beat for beat the same as the original. Which shows a complete lack of originality and creativity, making the film utterly pointless. But beyond that, the tone is inconsistent and is full of cartoonishness and fantasy themes that don't work. A spectacular mess, Blues Brothers 2000 has no idea what it's doing.
Super Reviewer
February 15, 2006
Pisses over the legacy and cult status of the original.
Super Reviewer
August 19, 2008
Talk about a difficult movie to review. Let it be known that I consider The Blues Brothers to be one of THE greatest movies ever made. The greatest musical ever made, and the best movie to ever show off the city of Chicago. No movie before or since has come close to capturing the essence of the city. You would think that NO ONE would have the audacity to even think of a sequel without the late, great John Belushi. But Dan Aykroyd, John Landis and company went ahead, cast John Goodman as Aykroyd's new partner in crime, re-assembled the band, and forged ahead. There are two ways to look at this movie. As a sequel, it is a complete bastardization of every single thing the original movie was. It commits the cardinal sin of sequels, and that is introducing a kid into the mix. It's tamed down PG-13, tries to pass of Canada as Chicago, goes for slapstick humor and pratfalls, and has none of the cohesion that made the original a masterpiece. As a sequel, it's enough to make a fan of the original vomit, and storm Universal Studios screaming for the heads of John Landis and Dan Aykroyd. However...viewed as a stand alone movie, and trying to put aside any thought of the's not that bad. The movie does have some chemistry between Aykroyd and Goodman. Credit must be given to Goodman for stepping into shoes he must've known would be impossible to fill. Took guts. The movie does contain a couple of good car chases that hold on to the over-the-top spirit of the chases from the first film. It also contains perhaps the biggest car pile-up in movie history. The biggest plus is that the music in the movie is OUTSTANDING!!!! The musicians in the Blues Brothers Band continue to deliver the goods. Throw in tons of legends from rythm & blues, jazz, rock, and even country, and you have a soundtrack nearly as worthy as the original. So whether or not you can watch this movie with any level of enjoyment, really depends on if you can distance yourself from the original classic. If you can't, then for the love of God, avoid this movie at all costs. If you can put your brain on auto pilot, enjoy some decent humor, car chases, and awesome blues music, you just might have a good time.
Super Reviewer
November 1, 2007
Why o why o why o why?
Super Reviewer
July 20, 2007
There was no reason to make this sequel. Especially since John Belushi passed away.
Super Reviewer
½ November 28, 2006
Not as bad as it's purported to be, at least it has some nice cameos. Although really it's not the Blues Brothers without John and when it's not in Illinois.
Super Reviewer
February 27, 2006
The kid is good but Goodman will never be Belushi. Akroyd is dependable as ever. This film gets the prize for the most fantastic cameos.
February 26, 2013
Don't get me wrong..this is a bad choice all around..Why John Landis? Why Aykroyd? It only gets a star for the little nostalgia of missing Jake. I have no idea why I even gave this any attention. Nostalgia goes a long way I guess.
Page 1 of 83