Director Report Card: John Landis (1998)

16. Blues Brothers 2000

Dan Aykroyd has never been one to let a story rest. I don't think he can help himself. He loves cooking up convoluted lore too much. This is, after all, the guy who talked about “Ghostbusters 3” for three straight decades. Similarly, Aykroyd long had plans to continue the “Blues Brothers” story. This is despite the death of John Belushi. One would assume another “Blues Brothers” adventure would be impossible with only one brother. Nevertheless, Aykroyd and Landis would begin to tinker with a sequel script throughout the nineties. Once a studio became involved, they started making outrageous demands. Like the sequel should be more family-friendly or fantastical than the last. In other words, “Blues Brothers 2000” was doomed to failure from the beginning for multiple reasons.

After sixteen years, Elwood Blues is released from prison. He is informed, immediately afterwards, that his brother is dead. He soon discovers afterwards that his adoptive father, Curtis, is also gone, along with the orphanage he grew up in. Despondent, he is given a ward from the orphanage – a ten year old kid named Buster – and a desire to reform the band. He does learn that Curtis has an illegitimate son, named Chamberlain... Who turns out to be a cop, who wants nothing to do with an ex-con like Elwood. Meeting with a former band member at the strip club he owns, Elwood soon is joined by Mack, a talented bartender. After running into trouble with the Russian mob,  Detective Chamberlain and the cops in pursuit, the new Blues Brothers heads towards New Orleans for a mysterious battle of the bands.

Making a “Blues Brothers” sequel after John Belushi's death is so obviously a bad idea. Yet “Blues Brothers 2000” really emphasizes why it's a bad idea. In the original, Elwood was the straight man. While Jake would cause trouble, cheating and conning his way into situations, Elwood would more quietly observe what was happening and comment on it. In the sequel, without Belushi's chaotic energy, Dan Aykroyd becomes the protagonist. Meaning Elwood has to perform big gags – like covering his head in shaving cream – or deliver innumerable monologues on various subjects. Not only is this a weird shift in the character's personality, it shows the equilibrium of the “Blues Brothers” universe out of wack.

Replacing John Belushi was a tall order. In fact, Aykroyd and Landis quickly deduced that it would take two men to fill Belushi's shoes. And then one of those men, Jim Belushi, had to drop out of the film because of scheduling conflicts. This just left John Goodman to be the hefty guy in the black suit next to Dan Aykroyd. Now, I love John Goodman. He's a wonderful character actor and even a talented singer, which he shows off several times here. However, Goodman has an entirely different energy from Belushi. He's laid-back and a little goofy, seemingly highly grateful to even be here. So he doesn't play off of Aykroyd the same way, or as well, as Belushi did. Once again, this forces Aykroyd into the schtick-y role, which ends up being very awkward. In short: Goodman is great but he's an ill-fit for this role.

That's far from the only awkward casting choice in the film. “The Blues Brothers” was an R-rated movie. Granted, aside from the profanity, there wasn't too much explicit content in that original film. Yet making a family/friendly sequel to an R-rated classic is still a bizarre decision. Even “Blues Brothers 2000” seems confused by this. A large section of the movie is set inside a strip club... One of those strip clubs where the girls don't take their clothes off. The biggest symptom of “Blues Brothers 2000” being rejiggered by the studio in an unnatural direction is Buster. Adding a little kid to a story that never had one before always comes off as a desperate move. The film constantly ascertains Buster's importance. Such as him talking Elwood into not giving up, giving him an inexplicable talent at playing harmonica, or Elwood getting immediately attached to the kid. It's not that Buster is terrible or anything. J. Evan Bonifant, in his only film role, does about as good a job as he could. But the character simply doesn't belong here.

Honestly, John Belushi's absence leaves such a void in “Blues Brothers 2000” that not even John Goodman and a little kid is enough to fill that missing space. Joe Morton is brought in as Detective Chamberlain, presumably similar to the part that Jim Belushi would have played. Morton is a talented performer and a surprisingly versatile singer. Yet he's undeserved by a script  that has him completely changing in the course of a single scene. The film tries to turn that into a joke but it only comes off as underwritten instead. Chamberlain's change-of-heart also leaves the film without a strong antagonist, Nia Pepples' deputy left to pursue the Brothers without much motivation to do so.

Aside from all the problems facing “Blues Brothers 2000's” mere existence, it's simply not that good of a sequel. This is one of those comedy follow-ups that seems content to repeat jokes from the first movie for the majority of its run time. A nun smacks Elwood for swearing. Instead of Elwood peeling the Bluesmobile into a parking spot once, he does it every single time, diminishing returns quickly setting in. Among the groups pursuing the Blues Brothers this time is a group of right-wing militia conspiracy theory types, which is almost identical to the Neo-Nazis from the first movie. Arethra Franklin appears to sing a song under the exact same circumstances as last time. Once again, the guys get talked into playing country-and-western music despite that not being their preferred genre. During the gospel musical number, dancers leap high into the air. These are just some example of the limp reprises of jokes that were way funnier the first time around.

Many fans of the first film complained that “Blues Brothers 2000” featured far too many exaggerated sight gags, which were at odds with the more grounded atmosphere of the first film. Honestly, considering the slight surrealism of the original “Blues Brothers,” the sequel expanding on that may be the sole smart decision “2000” makes. Buster having a fully furnished bedroom in the trunk of a car or the Bluesmobile effortlessly driving underwater actually got a chuckle out of me. The film introducing ghostly cowboys, dancing zombies, or honest-to-God miracles might push the sequel into the realm of outright fantasy. But it's also completely unexpected and that's sort of funny.

My willingness to like those literal magical moments probably has something to do with them being linked to some of the best musical sequences in the sequel. Yes, if “Blues Brothers 2000” has nothing else in its favor, it's that the music and dancing are all pretty damn great. That rendition of “Riders in the Sky” is energetic, with some especially good delivery from John Goodman. “It's Cheaper to Keep Her,” which introduces Goodman's musical prowess, is also very memorable. “Funky Nassau,” the zombie-assisted calypso number from Erykah Badu, is easily the highlight of the film. The dancing cowboy minions in that scene are also very memorable. The gospel rendition of “John the Revelator” is exploding with energy. The dancing in that scene is also expertly choreographed.

Yet, as great as much of the music is, “Blues Brothers 2000” also has a pacing problem. Many of the song-and-dance scenes do not advance the plot. John Popper of Blues Traveler appears to approach Elwood in a parking lot. He sings his song, unaware that the Blues Brothers have driven off without him. This moment is in the film for no reason. Wilson Pickett and Eddie Floyd appear to sing “634-5789,” which is pretty great. Yet the extended musical number has no effect on the story, bringing the pacing to a sudden stop. The film concludes with an appearance from The Louisiana Gator Boys, a blues super-group assembled for the film. Every notable member of the band stops to perform, the camera lingering on them. Their names might as well flash on-screen, which actually happens during the credits. Yes, it's cool but it's also so excessive.

The first “Blues Brothers” was also excessive and ran on for over two hours. The sequel, however, definitely lacks the zippy pacing of the original. Not just because of the emphasis on songs over story. All the plot points collide at the Battle of the Bands, the cops, Russian mobsters, and militia boys all showing up to attack the Blues Brothers. Erykah Badu than waves her hands and all the problems almost literally go away. The film then concludes with yet another lengthy song... Before tacking yet another song on after the credits are over. This pile-up of events suggest no real ending was ever written and the filmmakers hoped some decent songs would cover up the narrative gaps.

Speaking of pile-ups! Another gag “Blues Brothers 2000” copies from the original is destroying as many cop cars as it can. In fact, the film intentionally tops the original's number of destroyed cars by exactly one. Like everything else in the film, this joke is lingered on. The car crash scene feels like it goes on forever. Still, the car stunts are pretty damn impressive. Earlier, a vehicle does an amazing triple spin through the air. “Blues Brothers 2000” then does yet more triple aerial spins during the cop car pile-up. I have no idea how some of these vehicular stunts were done, full size vehicles sailing through the air like they're kites. One has to admire such elaborate, practical stunts.

Even if the studio hadn't meddled and mandated, there's no way a sequel to “The Blues Brothers” ever would've been a good idea. John Belushi was a talent that never could have been replaced. You can't have Elwood without Jake. No number of musical special guests were going to overcome that hurdle. Even if you can look past that impossible obstacle, “Blues Brothers 2000” still would've been one of those lazy sequels that attempts to recapture the original's magic just by doing the same gags over again. It flopped, because not a single fucking soul in the world demanded this. I will admit, as a kid, I did watch this one more than the original because I liked the goofy sight gags. As an adult, it's all too clear how misbegotten an enterprise this sequel was. [Grade: C]