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

jbar19 I had tons of expectations because I love the originalAnd this movie isn't in the same league. But its been 18 years and 3 major members of the original cast have passed away.....Dan Aykroyd is an amazing writer, but many times he needs someone to edit out his more outlandish ideas. Ghostbusters originally was darker and had teams of paranormal investigators traveling through time and to alternate dimensions. In this movie, there wasn't anyone to pare away some of Dan's weird and extraneous ideas. Consequently, there is some stuff that just seems weird and out of place. Like a magical Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats...The Good 1) AMAZING, Blues performers - Holy Crap, the number of top Blues musicians and singers is legendary. 60 years from now, people are going to be watching the musical performances on Youtube and wonder who the hell was able to get almost EVERY blues legend on the same stage at once. 2) Almost everyone from the original comes back. Including the great Katheryn Bigelow as the Nun. 3) Stays true to the original in scope and tone. It still feels like the same atmosphere and world of the first one. "My Watch Broke!" "God works in mysterious ways" etc.The Bad 1) The characters of Cab and Mighty Mac are worthless and don't add much to the story. Mighty Mac barely sings and doesn't add anything. Cab at least was Curtis' son so he belongs there, but he really doesn't add much. The Kid could have worked better if he was a harmonica prodigy from the start (Instead the Kid picks up a harmonica during a live performance and figures out he is a natural. How convenient) The Russians and the White Supremacists are also barely used and have no screen time. Why bother? 2) Supernatural Elements - OK the first movie had some supernatural stuff, but we knew it was God was protecting them. Now, we have a Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats?! Someone should have been there to edit out Aykroyd's more crazy stuff. 3) Lack of Mission - The first one they were desperate to save their orphanage. They were driven. In this one, they are just a band trying to get back together. There is a small subplot where Elwood is supposed to help rehabilitate the Kid but it wasn't explored very much. 4) More of an Emphasis on the music than on the comedy - This isn't necessarily a bad thing but while the second movie has more music, it is not as funny.I read where this movie was rated as the fourth worst sequel of all time. It does not deserve that. It's a good movie and, after reading the reviews, much better than expected. The original Blues Brothers was one of the best movies of the last 50 years. At least this sequel didn't screw things up.

Python Hyena Blues Brothers 2000 (1998): Dir: John Landis / Cast: Dan Aykroyd, John Goodman, Joe Morton, J. Evan Bonifant, B.B. King: Pathetic showcase that never reaches the heights of the original. It opens with the release of Elwood Blues from prison with the news that his brother Jake had passed away. He returns to the orphanage and put in charge of little Buster. Elwood plans to reunite with the band and compete in a battle of the bands contest held at a Voodoo lair. That is pitiful in itself. While music numbers are fine, the plot is just a recap minus the talent of the late John Belushi. Low key directing by John Landis who did such a brilliant job on The Blues Brothers. Dan Aykroyd cannot carry the film and the absence of Belushi is all too painful. John Goodman is a pale substitute to Belushi. He plays a bartender who becomes part of the band. Joe Morton plays the son of the Cab Calloway character in the original. He is a cop involved in a dumb transformation that sinks this garbage even further in despair. J. Evan Bonifant is totally unnecessary as Buster. B.B. King makes an appearance alongside numerous other musical talents but none can bring any real spirit to this travesty. The only real thing that this garbage offers is a record breaking sixty car pile up. Otherwise this is a pointless and stupid sequel where Elwood says to Buster as the credit roll, "Fasten your seatbelt." Landis gave no reason for us to do so. Score: 1 / 10

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.