Bed movie because no one replaced the Albanin John Belushi R.I.P

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.

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.

When you look back to the original "Blues Brothers" from 1980, it's really amazing how many people of the cast died since then. There are of course the big one's like John Belushi, Ray Charles, James Brown, Cab Calloway, Kathleen Freeman or John Candy, but also the more unknown one's like Donald Dunn, Alan Rubin or Henry Gibson. I thought that, because of this, a sequel isn't a good idea. That's also the reason why I didn't watch it until now, so 15 years after "Blues Brothers 2000" was released.After watching the movie I was relieved: The film was a lot better than I expected. Especially the music is once again amazing and it's nice to see John Goodman singing that awesome. To be honest with you: Maybe the score was even better than the "Blues Brothers" one. Otherwise, the story was so-so. It feels like you've already seen it. And this isn't even a feeling, it's the truth, as the plot is nearly the same as the original one. Again, the film starts with the release out of prison, again the band will be renewed and then will drive through the country to the one and final big gig. It seems like John Belushi is replaced by John Goodman, Cab Calloway by John Morton, and the Nazis by the Russians. The only missing part is the huge chase with the police, which was easily the best moment of "Blues Brothers". But don't get me wrong, the story is still great. But it's just a copy from the original one without the great characters of John Belushi or Cab Calloway.Overall the film is average, but the music is so good that it's not as important as usual. While the 1980 version is still a classic and one of the best movies ever made, this one is in the middle of the pack with six out of ten points.