Featured Audience Ratings

• Anthony L

  
  Of all the pointless sequels that have been made, Blues Brothers 2000 is probably the most pointless. It's incredibly misguided, did it make any money? I've never heard a good word said about it anyway, everyone involved should be ashamed. Even the array of amazing musicians… More
  Of all the pointless sequels that have been made, Blues Brothers 2000 is probably the most pointless. It's incredibly misguided, did it make any money? I've never heard a good word said about it anyway, everyone involved should be ashamed. Even the array of amazing musicians couldn't save it. Just awful, especially when you compare it to the fantastic original.

• Directors C

  
  [img]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon13.gif[/img] Born only out of the success of the original and plummeting into a pile of other dissapointing sequels released before the turn of the century, Blues Brothers 2000 fails to charm the second time around. John… More
  [img]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon13.gif[/img] Born only out of the success of the original and plummeting into a pile of other dissapointing sequels released before the turn of the century, Blues Brothers 2000 fails to charm the second time around. John Goodman is a perfectly fine replacement for John Belushi as Dan Aykroyd's partner but the simple fact of the matter is, no one really wanted this film. Anyway, would it really have been right to make the film after Belushi's death, despite the fact it's been made in his dedication? It's not as bad as it could have been but as I expected, I didn't like it as much as the original.

• Alexander D

  
  What makes this seemingly little-known sequel watchable is Dan Aykroyd's performance as Elwood Blues. He manages to maintain a similarly sarcastic, carefree attitude toward nuns, blues music, crime, and life in general as he did in the first film, and by this we are convinced… More
  What makes this seemingly little-known sequel watchable is Dan Aykroyd's performance as Elwood Blues. He manages to maintain a similarly sarcastic, carefree attitude toward nuns, blues music, crime, and life in general as he did in the first film, and by this we are convinced that a comedian such as him could easily hold up a sequel from nearly two decades later. In one scene, for example, he warns a child not to use a certain expletive. Immediately after, the child takes a cigarette out of the glove compartment, and Elwood begins using that word as if he were encouraging it. In another scene, a nun informs Elwood of his surrogate father's extramarital affair. Elwood responds with sly approval of the act, earning a whacking from the nun's metal rod. If this, to you, does not sound like something Elwood Blues would do, then you clearly have not seen THE BLUES BROTHERS or the skit on which it is based. Full Review: http://wp.me/p1Urcx-A5

• Lucas M

  
  Facts about "Blues Brothers 2000". *First: The Blues Brothers, is a terrific film, that looks perfect in his way. A unforgatable cult film which will be in the minds of a lots of fans. * Second: Make a sequel is not gonna be better or remmember the first or at least make a… More
  Facts about "Blues Brothers 2000". *First: The Blues Brothers, is a terrific film, that looks perfect in his way. A unforgatable cult film which will be in the minds of a lots of fans. * Second: Make a sequel is not gonna be better or remmember the first or at least make a homage to Belushi and Calloway. * Third: They make a sequel. * Fourth: Is suchs, have some nice scenes and good music... but don't compensate. * Fifth: Is rotten.

• David L

  
  I love the first film, its one of my top ten favorite films. The second - well, as we all know, we don't have John Belushi with us anymore, which is one strike right there. The filmmakers made the good choices of John Goodman and Joe Morton as backup singers. Had they stopped… More
  I love the first film, its one of my top ten favorite films. The second - well, as we all know, we don't have John Belushi with us anymore, which is one strike right there. The filmmakers made the good choices of John Goodman and Joe Morton as backup singers. Had they stopped there, the film would have been much better. Instead, a kid was thrown into the mix. An orphan, of course. Awwww. Elwood Blues is supposed to act as mentor for the kid (Buster), but forgets to return Buster to the orphanage, getting half the cops in the country and several mean orphanage workers on his tail. Now, the whole point of the first Blues Brothers film is that these guys can't stay out of trouble. The character of Elwood, with or without Brother Jake, is going to get himself in it up to his eyeballs. The whole story about Elwood being chased for kidnapping is ludicrous. Elwood is going to get in trouble for one thing or another. It didn't have to be kidnapping. Thus, we end up listening to a prepubescent kid squalling the lines of a damned good song, one that was belted out by three fine singers (Aykroyd, Goodman, and Morton), thus ruining the whole effect. It's no wonder that the Blues Brothers lost the Battle of the Bands - I'd have booed them offstage for bringing a kid into the mix. There's an cloying, aren't-we-cute gushiness about Buster and his little Blues Brothers outfit that almost gags me. I loved the musical numbers and all the guest artists - and what an impressive group they are! - so I can't understand why the filmmakers would drag down the storyline by introducing a kid, and throwing in all the clichés associated with a small child interacting with adults. The kid is just needless baggage. He's (supposedly, though I see no evidence of it) a good singer. He gives a pep talk at the crucial time. He's easy to bond with. It just doesn't work. This of course had a hard to getting to screen with studio " notes" such Buster being one of them and the other wanting a pg-13 rating which to me totally took the life out of the film and made it to lite.. I do really blame Landis or Aykroyd for the faults with this film. I've heard time and time again about how the dealing with a studio who has no clue about the audience for a film can screw it up. Also not the worst sequel ever made despite what some will tell you. Not even close. See Highlander 2 if you wanna see the worst sequel ever made. In the end I like the film will watch it for the music and for Elwood's highly inventive method of parallel parking

• Phil H

  
  Another glorious piece of blues, soul and funk melded together with a poor plot that just rips the original almost word for word. The cast are all old and fat and the acting is just as bad haha but the musical numbers and performances are again stunning, as said in my review of the… More
  Another glorious piece of blues, soul and funk melded together with a poor plot that just rips the original almost word for word. The cast are all old and fat and the acting is just as bad haha but the musical numbers and performances are again stunning, as said in my review of the original this is almost historical due to the performances alone. Great fun if you like the music and some excellent one off 'stage' shows make this worth your time despite it being a shit film in terms of an actual film Its for the music only people ;)

• Sanjaya &

  
  A typical old musical movie with a different taste of music... The music played in this movie were great, they're all lovely and easy listening... The performance from Dan Aykroyd and John Goodman were pretty good, they make the movie more alive.. But I get a little disappointed… More
  A typical old musical movie with a different taste of music... The music played in this movie were great, they're all lovely and easy listening... The performance from Dan Aykroyd and John Goodman were pretty good, they make the movie more alive.. But I get a little disappointed and confused with the story... It's too simple, but kinda weird... After all, I didn't make it to the ending because I'm too sleepy...

• Dean M

  
  In this follow-up to be 1980 comedy, the accent this time is on the music. Featuring a mind-boggling assemblage of blues and R&B greats, it serves not only as homage to the late Junior Wells but also as an earpleasing celebration of one of America's few original art forms.… More
  In this follow-up to be 1980 comedy, the accent this time is on the music. Featuring a mind-boggling assemblage of blues and R&B greats, it serves not only as homage to the late Junior Wells but also as an earpleasing celebration of one of America's few original art forms. From Aretha Franklin's reprise of her classic "Respect" to an eye-popping all-star finale jam featuring practically every notable performer in the blues and R&B fields, it's a real treat for fans of the music.

• Steve B

  
  This sub-par sequel is really just a "re-imagining" of the original, existing only as an excuse for the musical numbers (which are great), instead of a celebration of the music, as in the original. Sad, really. And the zombie sequence is in poor taste, I thought.

• Jason S

  
  Fun. It had a weak plot but the music was great and it had some funny parts.

• xGary X

  
  Tiresome cash-in and virtual remake of the original. Sadly, no Belushi who is "replaced" by John Goodman who has little to work with, and an irritating child. Some reasonably well handled set pieces though.

• Leigh R

  
  Not a bad movie.

• Luke B

  
  Good god. How could this have gone so wrong. the absence of John Belushi is obviously a big hit but still this could have been better. Instead it decides to be some kind of family film and adds one of the most irritating child actors of all time. Goodman is okay but he isn't a… More
  Good god. How could this have gone so wrong. the absence of John Belushi is obviously a big hit but still this could have been better. Instead it decides to be some kind of family film and adds one of the most irritating child actors of all time. Goodman is okay but he isn't a blues brother. The comedy is missing and by the end it is just a rehashed, confused, and stupid version of the original.

• Dann M

  
  Dan Aykroyd and John Landis get the band back together for the reunion film Blues Brothers 2000. Less of a sequel and more of a remake, the story is beat for beat the same as the first film. It shows a complete lack of originality and creativity that makes the film utterly… More
  Dan Aykroyd and John Landis get the band back together for the reunion film Blues Brothers 2000. Less of a sequel and more of a remake, the story is beat for beat the same as the first film. It shows a complete lack of originality and creativity that makes the film utterly pointless. But beyond that, the tone is inconsistent and is full of cartoonishness and fantasy themes that don't work. Blues Brothers 2000 is a spectacular mess of a film that has no idea what itâ(TM)s doing.

• Curt C

  
  Pisses over the legacy and cult status of the original.

• RJ M

  
  Talk about a difficult movie to review. Let it be known that I consider The Blues Brothers to be one of THE greatest movies ever made. The greatest musical ever made, and the best movie to ever show off the city of Chicago. No movie before or since has come close to capturing the… More
  Talk about a difficult movie to review. Let it be known that I consider The Blues Brothers to be one of THE greatest movies ever made. The greatest musical ever made, and the best movie to ever show off the city of Chicago. No movie before or since has come close to capturing the essence of the city. You would think that NO ONE would have the audacity to even think of a sequel without the late, great John Belushi. But Dan Aykroyd, John Landis and company went ahead, cast John Goodman as Aykroyd's new partner in crime, re-assembled the band, and forged ahead. There are two ways to look at this movie. As a sequel, it is a complete bastardization of every single thing the original movie was. It commits the cardinal sin of sequels, and that is introducing a kid into the mix. It's tamed down PG-13, tries to pass of Canada as Chicago, goes for slapstick humor and pratfalls, and has none of the cohesion that made the original a masterpiece. As a sequel, it's enough to make a fan of the original vomit, and storm Universal Studios screaming for the heads of John Landis and Dan Aykroyd. However...viewed as a stand alone movie, and trying to put aside any thought of the original...it's not that bad. The movie does have some chemistry between Aykroyd and Goodman. Credit must be given to Goodman for stepping into shoes he must've known would be impossible to fill. Took guts. The movie does contain a couple of good car chases that hold on to the over-the-top spirit of the chases from the first film. It also contains perhaps the biggest car pile-up in movie history. The biggest plus is that the music in the movie is OUTSTANDING!!!! The musicians in the Blues Brothers Band continue to deliver the goods. Throw in tons of legends from rythm & blues, jazz, rock, and even country, and you have a soundtrack nearly as worthy as the original. So whether or not you can watch this movie with any level of enjoyment, really depends on if you can distance yourself from the original classic. If you can't, then for the love of God, avoid this movie at all costs. If you can put your brain on auto pilot, enjoy some decent humor, car chases, and awesome blues music, you just might have a good time.

• Marcus W

  
  Why o why o why o why?

• Nicky M

  
  There was no reason to make this sequel. Especially since John Belushi passed away.

• Nate H

  
  Not as bad as it's purported to be, at least it has some nice cameos. Although really it's not the Blues Brothers without John and when it's not in Illinois.

• Sarah B

  
  The kid is good but Goodman will never be Belushi. Akroyd is dependable as ever. This film gets the prize for the most fantastic cameos.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings