Blues Brothers 2000

1998 "The Blues Are Back"
4.9| 2h3m| PG-13| en| More Info
Released: 05 February 1998 Released
Producted By: Universal Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Finally released from prison, Elwood Blues is once again enlisted by Sister Mary Stigmata in her latest crusade to raise funds for a children's hospital. Hitting the road to re-unite the band and win the big prize at the New Orleans Battle of the Bands, Elwood is pursued cross-country by the cops.

Genre

Action, Comedy, Crime

Watch Online

Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) is now streaming with subscription on Prime Video

Director

John Landis

Production Companies

Universal Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial
Watch Now
Blues Brothers 2000 Videos and Images
View All
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

Blues Brothers 2000 Audience Reviews

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.
Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.
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
ironhorse_iv 1980s Blues Brother was perhaps the greatest Saturday Night Live skit to spin off from the show into the realm of movies. Still, The Blues Brothers wasn't the perfect movie to be made. It was a nightmare for Universal Pictures, to complete. It was wildly off schedule, had an ever-changing script, drug-fuel stars and was way over budget. Yet, the movie made, nearly triple of its money back, when it was released. The reasons why it work, was because the movie was action packed, kinda funny, and had great musical numbers. Still, most of its success, came from its two top drawings stars, Dan Akroyd and John Belushi. This sequel, didn't have any of those achievements. It's felt like a desperate retread between writer/actor Dan Akyroyd and writer/director John Landis to relive the glory days. The sequel fails to live up to the original, big time. The reasons why, are very clear. First off, the movie plot is paper thin. The movie tells the story of Elwood Blue (Dan Aykroyd) trying to reunited the old band to fight in a battle of the band contest in Louisiana. In my opinion, this plot is very weak, compare to the "Mission from God," from the first movie. The movie never establish, why Elwood need the band, in the first place, or why the other band members would come to his rescue, when they, themselves are living, pretty well-off. Second off, the movie kinda ruins the first film, by stating out that the orphanage that the brothers were trying to save, ended up, closing. It kinda a bummer opening to a film. The Studio didn't like this, and force John Landis to make the rest of the film, more light-hearted. It gets worst, as the film turns PG to capitalize on a wider audience. It really limits the amount of violent and language, that they can show. This makes for a very underwhelming film. It was really boring for the most part. The jokes are very childish and cartoony. I really couldn't get into the whole, over the top supernatural sequence, this movie, brings. It felt like a 10 year old, wrote this film. I really didn't like the fact, that Elwood was being team up with a kid named Buster (J. Evan Bonifant). Not once, in the film does Elwood seem like he has any father-like connection with the kid. The movie acts as if the kid wasn't there, for the most part. It was very pointless. Even new members, like Mack (John Goodman) were underwhelming. The movie never does a good job, in making it seem, like Elwood and Mack have somewhat a connection. The chemistry, between them isn't there. It's sad, because I love John Goodman as an actor. John Landis and Dan Aykroyd were reportedly very unhappy with the changes the studio forced onto the film, even coming close to quitting the project. Third off, I can't believe, they made a sequel, 18 years after the 1980's hit, Blues Brothers. John Landis really waited too long to get this sequel, off the ground. Nobody really wanted to see this film, in the late 1990s. Why is this movie, even made!? It's not like, the fan-base were asking for a Blues Brothers sequel. If, they were; clearly the producers should had quickly capitalize on it, in the early 1980s. Maybe, they did, wanted to make a film sequel as quick as possible, but production of the film was halted, due to main actor, John Belushi's odd drug behavior. Maybe, they were waiting for Belushi to go into rehab. Well, that day never came, as John Belushi died in 1982. Since Belushi couldn't reprise his role, I don't understand, why this movie wasn't shelf. Clearly, they can't use a "double" for Jake. Nobody can double Belushi. The death was actually worked into the film's plot; it didn't really help, but it was at least respectful to John Belushi. The film was originally intended to include Brother Zee Blues (Jim Belushi, brother of John Belushi). But due to an already existing television deal, Jim Belushi was unable to appear and the script was altered to include Cab Blues (Joe Morton). This was a huge mistake as Joe Morton, really didn't give us, much in humor. He's a good actor, but he's no comedian. The movie has a lot of cameos by celebs. Aretha Franklin, B.B King, James Brown, Frank Oz and few others return from the first movie, for a small paycheck and reprise some of their classic hits. One person from the first movie that didn't return was Cab Calloway & John Candy, who died four years prior to the film's release. Still, the movie does give them, some homage. I like that new musicians at the time, like Blues Travelers & Erykah Badu, gives the movie, so needed new flair. It made the film, somewhat entertaining. The music is pretty damn good for the most part, but the movie doesn't mixed, the musical sequences so well, with the rest of the film. Overall: This movie is one of most pointless, underwhelming, and just downright bizarre sequels in comedy history. It wasn't good, man. I don't recommended.
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.
jrrdube 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.