Blues Brothers 2000
Ladies and gentlemen: contestant number one has arrived for the coveted award of Worst Film of the year. Blues Brothers 2000 is a semi-sequel/remake to the 1980 hit Blues Brothers. Having never personally seen the 1980 original, I probably missed many of the jokes relating to it. And yet, whenever a film can't even struggle to gain the audiences' attention by playing good music, something must be wrong. While the original was a mix of comedy and music, Blues Brothers 2000 seems to just go all out with music. Is there any comedy in it? Well, yes. Unfortunately, it's the only kind in which the audience laughs at the movie itself, as they do with such duds as Plan 9 From Outer Space.
First, let me relate my film experience while watching this motion picture. Three of my friends and I went to the dollar theater to see a midnight showing. There were several choices, but Blues Brothers 2000 stood out to everyone... except me. I don't like seeing sequels before the originals, and I was hesitant to watch it. However, I was dragged in, expecting a somewhat enjoyable time. As the film progressed through its colorful songs and costumes (and that's about it), three of us began to laugh at the film, as we weren't finding anything to laugh with it. By the end of the movie, the three of us seemed to have an enjoyable time. The best line in the film? "Somebody stop that mound of moss!" The three of us laughed out loud, and apparently, that was the point. However, the first two hours were so unbearably dull, that anything resembling comedy became a chance for us to laugh at it.
Blues Brothers 2000 begins exactly 18 years after the first one left off. Elwood Blues (Dan Aykroyd) gets released from jail, only to discover that his beloved brother is dead (the late John Belushi). And that's really all I can tell you about the story. The plot is more like a winding road, except that it seems to go nowhere--and it gets there fast. Instead of containing an actual plot, the film just plods along at a fast pace, jumping from one song to the next. If songs were enough to hold a film together, Blues Brothers 2000 could have been rather entertaining. But nowadays, audiences seem to be yearning for more intelligent films that tell a good story. This more than likely explains the tepid box office earnings this movie received. Audiences certainly didn't want this one around.
There are many, many things wrong with Blues Brothers 2000, and one of them just happens to be in the title itself. The movie seems to be two years ahead of itself, referring to its 2000. One wonders why Landis decided to release this movie in 1998 instead of 2000. In fact, there is no logical explanation. Landis had obviously waited long enough to make this sequel, so why not just push it ahead two years? It wouldn't have made it any better, but I'm sure more people would have seen it. I guess Blues Brothers 1998 sounded rather dumb. Then again, that would have merely fit with the overall quality of this movie.
Among the other things disturbingly wrong in the movie are: bad acting, virtually no comedy, no pace, horrible choreography, pathetic dialogue, annoying subplots, etc. On the acting side, only one of the cast really stood out: J. Evan Bonifant. He was the 10 year old boy. This kid can sing, can dance better than anyone else, and still maintains some dignity in the end. Perhaps this is just because he is 10 years old. He not only outperforms all the adults, but steals the film. His scenes are entertaining, and almost impressed me enough to give the film another star. But there just weren't enough scenes involving him. And if he was in the shot, one of the pathetic grown-ups would be around. I mean, this kid can really dance! His energy was very visible, but this was also detrimental to the overall film. It just reminds us of what we are missing.
I have never been a big fan of musicals, but I have grown to appreciate them. There are a few that I don't like to watch, and then there are those that I love watching again and again. Blues Brothers 2000 is supposedly a musical/comedy, and yet it can't find it's own category. It tries too hard to be a comedy, most of which just fails completely. It also has some lame subplot involving a Russian militia, which is really never explained. While watching this movie, I found myself noticing what great lengths the producers went to in order to prove that these Russian fellows were the bad guys. Every cliche in the book, from smoking to swearing to burning down buildings. I've never been more conscious about the stereotypical portrayal that many films tend to rely on.
As a musical, Blues Brothers 2000 isn't one. It's more of a concert, but all the songs are inserted into this desperate plot. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but a musical is supposed to have original music, written directly for the film. Not so with this one, as all of the music has already been performed before. This music is supposed to create the energy and spice up the film. Instead, it merely serves as a mild form of entertainment in between the narrative. Unfortunately, because all the film has been done prior to this, I found myself getting bored, as I had heard this music over and over before. This was nothing new, and it wasn't able to keep my attention on screen. As for the action--well, there is the dumb subplots. One impressive stunt involved seemingly hundreds of police cars piling up on the screen. At first, this is perfect and quite funny. But after the fifteenth or twentieth car, I got bored. By the time it ended, I was annoyed. How many dumb cops are there in this film?
Amidst all this disaster and mayhem, brief cameos begin appearing. Nearly all of them are welcomed by the audience (tired of seeing Aykroyd and Goodman making fools of themselves). The three most appealing ones are Aretha Franklin, Paul Shaffer, and Erykah Badu. Franklin breaks out, singing her most famous song "R-E-S-P-E-C-T". This moment is a delight, but the song is choreographed poorly, and even Franklin appears to be dismayed with the overall film. Shaffer, from "The Tonight Show with David Letterman," has an enjoyable time on screen, and his brief cameo is almost a surprise, as he actually does a good acting job. Badu also has fun on screen, and her character is just strange enough to fit into the film. Heck, at this point, anything could happen. Pigs could fall from the sky (although, frankly, that would have been more entertaining to watch than this).
The production values of Blues Brothers 2000 are rather poor, including the special effects. Director Landis has absolutely no control over his material, trading plot for music and dialogue for... well, music. The poor direction can also be expressed in one scene of the film: the Blues brothers get chased around in their car by the Russian militia. By the end of the chase, they are back exactly where they began. That was some short chase scene, let me tell you! The costumes are vibrant and impressive, by far the most colorful thing on screen. The music is excellent, though as I said before, it isn't capable of holding its own film together. This motion picture would have mostly worked on video, as a collection of different artists performing their best hits. But alas, the screenwriters Dan Aykroyd and John Landis want to include a plot, and it fails miserably.
Blues Brothers 2000 is rated PG-13 for exotic dancing and some language. I'm not quite sure of which age group Landis was going for with this one, as it isn't intelligent enough for adults or teenagers, and it contains questionable content not suitable for children. Of course, the box office speaks for itself. While the first one may have been funny, entertaining, and a classic, this sequel is dead in the water. Hopefully more people will realize what good writing can do for a film. Heck, to see good writing in a movie, check out the latest motion picture from the Coen Brothers, The Big Lebowski. It's better than anything you'll find in this movie.