Eric Stevenson I feel terrible for not watching the original "Blues Brothers" film seeing as how popular it is. There are too many mistakes to list in this movie, but the first and foremost is the title. Why is it called "Blues Brothers 2000" when it was released in 1998? Couldn't they even get that right? This movie features this new kid character being introduced and he does practically nothing for the entire movie except steal a guy's wallet. That's really it. Now I will give it credit for having pretty good music in it. The songs are surprisingly catchy.The main flaw is that half of the original cast is gone. There's no setup or tension because the orphanage from the first film was closed down. The only good scene is when they show the cars pile up. Even that isn't very rewarding because you're expecting something to surpass that at the very end but instead it amounts to literally nothing. I feel this movie could have ended at the 90 minute mark. Instead, they just continue it with more stupidity like people being turned into rats! *1/2

sohrmn Blues Brothers 2000 has Elwood (recently released from prison) getting the band back together in order to help raise money for a charity. Along the way he gets into trouble with the law, faces several familiar situations and lets a ten year old boy tag along.Jake is dead (the film is unclear on the specifics),and while John Goodman was probably the best available option, he is simply not given much to work with. Much of the talent in this film is similarly handicapped by a lackluster script, which is rarely funny or smart, and frequently offers situations done before (and better) in the original film.The addition of a ten year old boy is especially off putting and feels like someone wanted to rebrand the franchise into something more suitable for a silly, kid-friendly Saturday Morning cartoon, or video game.The music in the film is great, and it could be argued that the film was setup to pay tribute to some great bands and singers. Had they made it into a musical, rather then a sequel/remake, it might have been easier to come up with a better script.However, this ain't a musical or one long music video. This movie was, at least, advertised as a long-awaited continuation of the franchise. As much as we may want to, we cannot only focus on the music.This sequel/not-sequel often recycles events from the original (I.e. the Nazis), but doesn't improve upon them. In fact this sequel/not-sequel adds in goofy Russian gangsters. goofy cops and lots of kid-friendly goofyness, you may wonder if the script is trying to reband a smart, funny and, yes, gritty franchise into a kid-friendly, cartoon/video game.It undercuts the sacrifice made in the first film. It introduces new characters who are not given much to do, or, in the case of the boy, seem very awkward.Blues Brothers 2000 shines in the music department, but doesn't really seem to know why it exists. It has elements of being a sequel, a tribute, a remake of the first film, a serious look at an aging musician/ex-con, or rebranding of the series for 1990s kids,but none of these elements really work well in the movie.

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.

Dorsetty-867-771486 See my title? Now that is a really poor joke, but I hate to say still better and more amusing than this film. I have put this review may contain spoilers, but I am not sure how I can really spoil something so appalling.Music, yes it has music and it is OK. I was most fascinated to hear a hyped up Gospel rendition of "John the Revelator" a much beloved tune for me from The Sons of Anarchy.Does the Blue Brothers 2000 have a plot? Not that I noticed, it seemed to be mostly a vehicle to fit in as many possible cameo performances from The Blues Brothers.If you look at the full cast list and see that they managed to destroy 1 more car than the original Blues Brothers film you have to ask this question; Was someone at studio production stone deaf and at a business lunch misunderstood a conversation in which they thought someone said "The Blues Brothers were great too..." to which they said "Yes...." and then thought they were signing for lunch? It is said that this film lost $14 Million. I'm shocked the loss was really that small.