good back-story, and good acting

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

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

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

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.

If this movie was not a sequel of one of the best cult movies of the past 30+ years, it would just a dumb movie, the fact it is is just an insult to the memory of the original cast members who passed away. I originally saw the movie when it was released on VHS, and rented the movie for $3, in the late 90's, and I felt ripped off beyond belief. I just recently rewatched the movie, and I feel just stupid for doing so. The movie is even worse the second time around. There are no redeeming qualities, or performances, to save the movie, which has a dumbass plot, and is just boring to watch. The whole 'feud' with the russians is like what a 2 year old would do, and shows early on what a disaster the movie is. The ending is pointless, driving off into the horizon with the cops chasing. Seems like no one knew how to end the movie so they went the brainless way out, at least the first movie showed what happens when you fool with the cops, you become the prison band, which made the end of the original excellent. The only thing they could have worked is have James take over John's role, because the explanation of Jake's death is soooo stupid it's insulting. In the trivia to this movie, it says the movie was ranked 4th, out of 25, worst sequels, I would like to know what was worse than this? I would have said it IS the worst. Even giving this movie a "1" seems like a compliment, but they should add a vote of "Avoid at all costs", because this is the case for this flop. I am really disappointed with Dan Ackroyd, he is almost always good, and this movie looks like he was asleep at the wheel.