Back in 1980, two stars from the hit late-night TV show, "Saturday Night Live" adapted their popular skit, featuring the characters Jake and Elwood Blues, into a full-length movie. "The Blues Brothers," starring John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, came out at the height of their popularity, made a decent amount of money (for the time), and helped turn the TV actors into movie stars. Of course any time a movie is successful, there usually has to be the inevitable sequel that hopes to capitalize on the original's good fortunes before it fades from the public's memory.
Someone obviously forgot that last part until now, eighteen years later, as the sequel finally arrives in the form of "Blues Brothers 2000." When I first heard of this project, I had serious doubts about the reasons for making the film, as well as its financial prospects. First off, it had been nearly two decades since the original, and the film's initial audience was now entering early middle age, while most of today's main moviegoers weren't even in elementary school when the brothers first hit the big screen. Then there was the fact that Belushi, who made up half the duo, was dead, and the possibility of adding a new partner and recapturing the fun of the original seemed to be a next to impossible task. Finally (and as is often asked about sequels), why taint the memories of the original? Sure, the first one was stupid, but it was also wildy fun.
It turns out my gut feeling was correct. Not only is the film a nearly unimaginative retreading of the original, but its box office potential is seriously questionable. When the original came out, the stars were hot from "SNL," and they had a hit album, "Briefcase Full of Blues." Now, so many years later, people know of the original but it's not high on anyone's wish list of films to see. Nor are any of the actors involved with this project box office draws anymore. Aykroyd hasn't had a hit in more than a decade, and while Goodman was in a popular TV show ("Roseanne"), he hasn't had much success at the big screen box office.
All of that would be forgivable had the sequel been good, or at least decent, but sadly it's not. So many scenes and other elements have been borrowed (ie. stolen, ripped from, copied, etc...) from the original that they might as well have simply re-released the first film and been done with it. Here's a quick, but certainly not a completely comprehensive list of material found in both films:
A nun repeatedly hits Elwood with a slender pointing tool in response to him cursing (she hit both Belushi and Aykroyd in the original), the trademark sliding and spinning parallel parking appears in both films, and the Russian mafia and a right-wing militia group have replaced the neo-Nazi party and Carrie Fisher (all of whom try/tried to kill the Blues Brothers) from the first film. There are massive and spectacularly stupid car crashes that appear in both, and Aretha Franklin (with three doo-wop girls as her backups) performs the song "Respect" instead of "(You Better) Think" (heard in the first) to her character's husband about him rejoining the band. This also includes the same dance steps that Belushi and Aykroyd performed in the original that are repeated here.
Additionally, the band ends up at a bluegrass concert where they have to do a cover of "(Ghost) Riders in the Sky" compared to the original where they ended up in a country and western bar and improvised the theme from "Rawhide" and the song "Stand By Your Man." We also get to see James Brown "sermonizing" in a tent revival whereas in the first film he did so in a church, but both have people doing back flips and somersaults during the performance. Even small, inconsequential moments, such as throwing a car's cigarette lighter out the window, are copied from the original film to the second. For those of you who are upset that we may have "given away" too much of this film's proceedings, don't worry, it's all there in the original film where it's done so much better because it's fresh and not recycled like this material.
Yes, I understand that sequels are supposed to contain familiar material that we loved/liked about the original. That's fine, and I don't mind the many cameos from various musicians or even the cameos reappearing from the first. Nor do I mind hearing the piano theme from "Peter Gunn" again, or seeing the guys dressed the same as in the original. Those are elements you'd expect. It's just all of the above material that shows that director/co-writer John Landis and Aykroyd didn't even try to come up with anything original. It would be like the Superman or Batman series replacing the villains with different characters from film to film, but making all of them have the exact same diabolical plan with scenes lifted straight from the earlier films. It's lazy movie making and these guys have been caught red-handed.
All of that's too bad because the idea of following up the original story so many years later isn't a bad one. The thought of seeing these characters nearly two decades later is intriguing -- they'd all be eighteen years older, and would be "suffering" from nearing or passing the half century age mark. The aches, pains and complaints of middle age would provide for some funny material, but none of that is addressed. While the characters have all moved on with their lives, they act as if they've been pulled from a time warp, dropped into this film, and have taken up where they left off.
Granted the original wasn't Oscar worthy material, but at least it had a plot ("We're on a mission from God") where they had to raise money to save an orphanage and avoid an ever increasingly ridiculous amount of people who wanted to stop them. It was stupid, but at the same time it was a great deal of fun mixed with a good selection of original and covered music. The sequel, unfortunately, has a plot that continually flounders about like a fish that's fallen from the aquarium, and also has a much weaker selection of toe-tapping tunes.
The problems don't stop there. Beyond the fact that Landis has simply rehashed the original, the biggest problem lies in John Belushi's absence. His brilliant lunacy propelled the original (and most every other film he was in) and is sorely missed here. Goodman, while okay in his "replacement" role, simply can't fill the shoes of a comic genius. That's not entirely his fault as his character has been thinly constructed, but without a Belushi-like presence the film consequently feels flat. The original brotherly partnership fueled the first film, and here Aykroyd is pretty much left alone to carry the movie and simply can't do it.
Without a plot, the film tries to rely on its many musical numbers, but is only partially successful. Featuring a weaker selection of tunes when compared to the original, you probably won't leave the film humming any of the songs as you did/would have after seeing the first. The lip synching is also horrendous and actually had many viewers in our audience laughing over that matter. One can only hope that it was done on purpose that way, but I doubt it. There are a few decent numbers, however, such as the Busby Berkley inspired rendition of "634-5789" where some "love line" operators dance in unison around and on their desks, that at least make the film partially bearable.
There is a big all-star musicians jam at the end that goes on for at least five minutes and features many legendary performers such as B.B. King, Eric Clapton, Dr. John, Bo Diddley, and scores of others. While it's enjoyable to watch them perform a few numbers, it just shows that the movie has completely run out of creative gas. After that, the movie simply stops in mid-thought and the credits start rolling.
For those who've never seen the original, I suppose this might come off as passable entertainment, but the lack of any real plot plus the fact that they'll miss the inside "jokes" certainly shouldn't endear many moviegoers. As for those who have seen the original, go back and watch it again instead of sitting through this uninspired rip-off.
If anything, I had hoped that Landis would at least not repeat the stupid car crashes from the first film, but that was wishing for too much regarding these grown up boys with their cinematic toys. According to the press notes, the big sixty car pileup -- of which they're very proud for setting the "world record" -- took four months to plan and three days to shoot. Now that's some fine use of film. Take our advice, stay away from this picture least you get into your own multiple car pileup as you try to flee the theater after seeing it. We give "Blues Brothers 2000" a minimal 2 out of 10.
![[Screen It]](https://www.screenit.com/images/screenit_subscriber_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
![[Around the World in 80 Days]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/around_the_world_in_80_days_2022_small.jpg)
![[Family Camp]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/family_camp_small.jpg)
![[Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness]](https://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/doctor_strange_in_the_multiverse_of_madness_small.jpg)