Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

FilmBuff1994 Blues Brothers 2000 is a dreadful movie with a very poorly developed plot and a star studded cast that could not do anything to save this film. The music numbers are really the only redeeming quality of the entire film. There's no denying that Dan Aykroyd still has tune, as does John Goodman. At the same time, they rely so much on these numbers that there really is no plot. They are used in the original film to serve the plot, but in this case the plot is used to serve the music, every scene is merely used to set up another song.The main reason this film does not work out, as you would imagine, is John Belushi's absence, and it all feels a little disrespectful to the great comedian who died several years prior. Goodman was not even enough to make up for his loss, and I honestly felt a bit disappointed in Aykroyd for doing this movie. The main thing I took away from this was that one major quality in one film can destroy the sequel if it is absent. Unfunny, uninspired and lacking the originals charm, Blues Brothers 2000 is a movie that was better off not having been made. Elwood must reunite his old band with a couple of new members for another mission. Best Performance: Dan Aykroyd / Worst Performance: J. Evan Bonifant

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.

KINGJO4606-1 Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I saw this movie in theaters with my family as a 7-year-old kid. But I do think that the songs were almost all good (364-5789; John the Revalator; I'm Looking for a Fox; Funky Nassau, etc.) It is also a treat to see all the old band members reprise their old roles and to see them in old age. Dan Ackroyd does a good job acting and even improves upon himself, character-wise and acting-wise, in this sequel as compared to the original. John Goodman plays the part of a kinder person than John Belushi's old character. (In fact, I also would not think it heresy to think that John Belushi's character did not contribute that much to the original in the first place. He just was there to say cheap things like "Fix the cigarette lighter," "Hit it!," "You motorhead!" "No f---ing way!", etc. Elwood was the one who was coming up with ideas on how to keep the Blues Brothers afloat. The viewer of the original movie should not underestimate the degree to which the good music and good screenplay in the original movie is causing him to think "The Blues Brothers" to be a great movie and not a mere good movie.) Buster may be a trouble-maker, but he is a spirited kid in the movie. Just like the original, the film catches the viewer's attention with the change in scenery. The film, to a slight degree, becomes a little corny with the White Supremacy and Russian gangsters bits, but that only remains a minor part of the film. The film was funny; Elwood's 'shaving cream scene' was hysterical. The Louisiana gig scene at the end was also exciting. The ending scene of the movie was admittedly anti-climactic. However, I do not hesitate in giving this movie a thumbs-up. After all, the film does not drag; it is not boring because it is more fast-paced than most motion pictures.CONCLUDING MESSAGE - No one should feel ashamed to try watching a movie, even if it does have bad reviews. I will personally opine that there is nothing wrong with liking or loving a movie that most people tend to dislike or hate. Film companies, although motivated by profit, generally do not distribute films to the public unless they have a fervent conviction that at least someone will like it.

Steve Pulaski If a sequel to the iconic 1980's film The Blues Brothers needed to be made, I would've much rather seem John Goodman assume the role of Jake Blues, the chubby and talky half of the Blues brothers rather than watch an overlong, padded out tribute film to the group, involving the surviving half of the brothers, Elwood, desperately try to get the old band back together in an effort to keep the blues alive. There is an uncanny stench of desperation from the screen as the obligatory sequel plot takes fold and sadly consumes the iconic trail the original 1980's classic paved.I recall my original review of The Blues Brothers with dread upon viewing its unnecessary sequel. I stated, "there are two car chases that could very well rank in some of the best ever executed in film. Police cars topple each other, one after another, and the film knows when to start and when to end them," and conclude with, "The Blues Brothers is a fun, energized comedy that starts fast and rarely lets up in terms of comedy and music. It's a Chicago classic and one of the funniest and smartest musical comedies I have yet to see." The sequel takes all the fun out of its formula and replaces it with wasted energy. There's nothing here that couldn't have been simply put on a soundtrack and left at that.Dan Aykroyd reprises his role as Elwood, as he tries so hard to make new friendships, one of which involving a ten year old orphan named Buster (J. Evan Bonifant), who he takes along upon learning of his rather somber roots at the orphanage Jake and Elwood were raised in and saved from being demolished in the original film. He learns that Buster has a talent for playing the harmonica and gives him a slick suit and shades to join in the revival band. Elwood also recruits Mack McTeer (played by John Goodman), a bartender from a new strip club he has just found out about, and Cab (Joe Morton), the illegitimate son of an old friend who is initially bitter and cold towards the idea of a band but soon can not refuse.One of the strongest moments is the three minute long musical rendition of Wilson Pickett's "634-5789," about a phone number, when dialed, will connect the lonely caller to attractive women who will provide them with a good time. If only they saw who was really working the phone lines. For every infectious dance sequence we get, we get an endless amount of stale comedy littered with unimpressive jokes and redundant banter. The musical numbers are the saving grace here but, again, that's what soundtracks are for.It's hard to say exactly where Blues Brothers 2000 goes wrong. It seems to have all the working components for a sequel to the original film. It is written by Aykroyd himself and John Landis (who again assumes the director role), two men who should know the material better than any soul, and we can see they desperately tried to work around the deaths of co-workers John Belushi, Cab Calloway, and John Candy in order to make a sequel work, and John Goodman seems as good as anyone to proudly boast the suit and glasses, yet the pieces do not fit like they're supposed to. This is more of a tribute film rather than a direct sequel.I'll end this on a rather loose comparison; if the original Blues Brothers film was Hall and Oates, then Blues Brothers 2000 is the Hall and Oates cover band that's biggest gig is open mic night down at the town pub. They may not be too painful, but hell, it just ain't the real thing.Starring: Dan Aykroyd, John Goodman, J. Evan Bonifant, Joe Morton, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, B. B. King. Directed by: John Landis.