Blues Brothers 2000

“Blues Brothers 2000,” Jon Landis’ 1998 sequel to his 1980 film “The Blues Brothers,” follows the pattern created by the first film: It mixes comedy with musical numbers by a wide array of legendary R&B performers.

That might sound like a good trade-off: Sit through the comedy. Float along with the story. As a reward for being patient, hear Areatha Franklin sing Respect. However, think of it this way. Franklin sings once – Dan Aykroyd sings three times. John Goodman sings an entire song – and B.B. King sings half a song.

Yes, “Blues Brothers 2000” does have cameos by Franklin, King, Sam Moore, James Brown and Eric Clapton. However, it makes an audience pay for every two seconds of enjoyable with 10 seconds of torture.

This is torture. Mike LaSalle said in his review, “There was always something a little discomforting about the Blues Brothers. To watch them was to feel as though one were indulging a fantasy. Without John Belushi, the fantasy seems a lot less vital and even more pedestrian.”

Belushi’s passing is explained when Elwood Blues, reprised by Aykroyd, is released from prison and hears that his brother, Jake, is dead. Elwood’s mission is to reunite his band, and for that he teams up with a singing bartender, played by Goodman, and some musicians and drives off.

Aykroyd can’t sing, but he tried hard, and trying hard makes everything look even worse. The same goes for Goodman, and for Joe Morton, plays a National Guard commander-turned-bluesman. You could think, “There, but for the grace of God…” LaSalle asks, “After all, if someone told you that you could sing, and offered to put you in front of a great blues band, wouldn't you do it? And wouldn't you want to crawl under a rock when the movie came out?”

The film is dead on arrive for 30 minutes, until Franklin comes on and gives three minutes of life. LaSalle says, “Talent is a wonderful thing, and one especially appreciates its splendors and mysteries after enduring Goodman and Aykroyd.” From then on, the only good parts are the songs by the real R&B singers.

LaSalle says, “For reasons that I suspect are demographic, there's a boy (J. Evan Bonifant) in the movie, a 10-year-old who leaves an orphanage to join the band.” The kid does not contribute anything except giving the cops a reason to chase the Blues Brothers everywhere they go. There are chase scenes and car pileups. This wasn’t new in 1980. It hasn’t gotten any newer.

There’s also a subplot with the Russian mafia. Since the Russians don’t sing, there’s no reason to pay attention.

This is hands down, one of the worst sequels ever made. If you loved the first one, never see this sequel. It will kill you every minute you are watching it. It has the famous line, “The Lord works in mysterious ways.” You would be saying that throughout the duration of this film. Was there any reason to make this travesty of a sequel? There was absolutely no reason for Elwood to get the band back together. The first one had a reason, and it was funny. Here, there isn’t a reason. The comedy just doesn’t work. However, if you would like, get the soundtrack because that is the only redeeming factor of this film. How can such great people who made one of the best comedies ever make one of the most pointless and worse sequels ever? I can’t even fathom the idea of this hideously atrocious sequels even existing. Just avoid this at all cost because this film is like a new form of punishment.

Alright everyone, we have now come to the end of “Dan Aykroyd Month.” I’m sorry that I started it off great and ended it off on a bad note. But that’s just how it is sometimes. Actors star in great and bad films. Stay tuned next month to see what I will review next.

North

Roger Ebert started his review out by saying, “I have no idea why Rob Reiner, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "North" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails.”

The film stars Elijah Wood, who was a wonderful child actor (Ebert pointed out, “and if you don't believe me, watch his version of "The Adventures of Huck Finn").” Here he is stuck in a story that no actor, however great, however young, should be punished with. He plays a kid with distracted parents, who decides to go into court, emancipate himself from them, and travel the world to search for nicer parents. This is all helped by his friend Winchell (Matthew McCurley) and his aid Arthur Belt (Jon Lovitz).

This idea is greatly flawed. Ebert is right when he said, “Children do not lightly separate from their parents - and certainly not on the evidence provided here, where the great parental sin is not paying attention to their kid at the dinner table.” The parents, played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jason Alexander, have provided little North with what looks like a million-dollar house in a Frank Capra neighborhood, all on his dad’s income as a pants inspector. Ebert said, “And, yes, I know that is supposed to be a fantasy, but the pants-inspecting jokes are only the first of several truly awful episodes in this film.”

Ebert said, “North goes into court, where the judge is Alan Arkin, proving without the slightest shadow of a doubt that he should never, ever appear again in public with any material even vaguely inspired by Groucho Marx. North's case hits the headlines, and since he is such an all-star overachiever, offers pour in from would-be parents all over the world, leading to an odyssey that takes him to Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, and elsewhere.”

What is the point of the scenes with the auditioning parents? (The victimized actors range from Dan Aykroyd and Reba McEntire as Texans, Keone Young and Lauren Tom as Hawaiians, Alexander Godunov and Kelly McGillis as Amish parents, Abe Vigoda, Graham Greene, and Kathy Bates as Eskimos). They are all seen as broad, desperate comic cartoons. They are not funny. They are not touching. There is no truth in them. They don’t even work as parodies. There is an absurdity here that seems almost intentional, as if the filmmakers thought to leave anything of interest or entertainment value out of these segments. We also have Faith Ford, John Ritter, Scarlett Johansson, and Jesse Ziegler as a nice family, but for some reason, North doesn’t feel like he belongs there.

North is followed on his journey by a mysterious character who appears in many disguises. He is the Easter bunny, a cowboy, a beach guy, a standup comic, and a Federal Express driver who works in several product plugs.

North thinks it is funny the guy looks familiar. That’s because he is. All of the appearances are played by Bruce Willis, who is not funny, or helpful, in any of them.

I can understand what Ebert meant when he said, “I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.”

Ebert continued, “I hold it as an item of faith that Rob Reiner is a gifted filmmaker; among his credits are "This Is Spinal Tap," "The Sure Thing," "The Princess Bride," "Stand By Me," "When Harry Met Sally...," and "Misery." I list those titles as an incantation against this one.”

“North,” released in 1994, is a bad film – one of the worst made that year, maybe ever. Ebert ended his review by saying, “But it is not by a bad filmmaker, and must represent some sort of lapse from which Reiner will recover - possibly sooner than I will.”

What were people thinking when making this film? At first, it feels like a harmless family comedy until it goes on to offend all these people. The Texans want to fat up North so he can be like their son who died in a stampede, the Hawaiians want to put North on a billboard where an octopus pulls down his speedo, mooning people into thinking it will promote tourism, the Eskimos say goodbye to their elders before sailing them off into the sea where they die with dignity. Ok, when that was done, it was done in time of famine and was extremely rare, only done as a last resort. Also, no one does that anymore! At least they had Graham Greene in here, but why did they spray paint Kathy Bates and made her into an Eskimo? Don't they know how offensive all of this is to others? And how is it that North travels all over (Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, China, Africa, France) and not find a single family that he likes? On top of that, why are NONE of the jokes funny!? Siskel and Ebert said this film was first-class junk, it made Ebert cringe, and Siskel said they felt unclean just sitting there thinking about it.

If you get a chance to pass this film up and never see it, don’t. I saw this briefly as a child and as a teen and I thought nothing of it, but it wasn’t until I saw the Nostalgia Critic’s review of it that I went back and saw it. Boy is that a mistake I highly regret making. I can’t believe that such a great director, Rob Reiner, could have even thought of such a dirty idea. This is one of the worst decisions that any director has made.

Sadly, we’re going to have to end off “Dan Aykroyd Month” with another bad movie. Hold on to your vomit bags next week to find out. In the meantime, I’m going to clean off after typing up this review.

Trading Places

Roger Ebert started his review by saying, “"Trading Places" resembles "Tootsie" and, for that matter, some of the classic Frank Capra and Preston Sturges comedies: It wants to be funny, but it also wants to tell us something about human nature and there are whole stretches when we forget it's a comedy and get involved in the story. And it's a great idea for a story: A white preppy snot and a black street hustler trade places, and learn new skills they never dreamed existed.”

This isn’t exactly a new idea for a story (Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper immediately is thought of). However, like a lot of stories, it depends less on plot than on character, and the characters in “Trading Places,” released in 1983, are wonderful comic inventions. Eddie Murphy plays Billy Ray Valentine, the con man who makes his first appearance as a blind, legless veteran. Dan Aykroyd is Louis Winthorpe III, the stuck-up commodities broker. In a skillful casting move, elder veterans Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche are cast as the Duke brothers, infinitely rich men who make little wagers involving human lives.

One day a certain tempting wager is thought of. Louis had Billy arrested for stealing his briefcase. It’s a wrong charge and Billy is innocent, but Billy is black and had the misfortune to encounter Louis in front of a snobby club. Ebert said, “To Mortimer Duke (Ameche), a believer that environment counts for more than heredity, this is a golden opportunity to test his theory. He bets his brother that if Aykroyd and Murphy were to change places, the black street kid would soon be just as good as calling the shots in the commodity markets as the white Ivy Leaguer ever was.”

Because the Dukes are rich, they can make almost anything happen. They take everything away from Louis – his job, his home, his butler (Denholm Elliott), his fiancée (Kristin Holby), his limousine, his self-respect. They give Billy what they took from Louis. The rest of the movie follows the fortunes of the two protagonists as they hideously adjust to their new lives, and get involved in a commodities scam the Duke brothers are trying to pull off.

This is a good comedy. Ebert noted, “It's especially good because it doesn't stop with sitcom manipulations of its idea, and it doesn't go only for the obvious points about racial prejudice in America. Instead, it develops the quirks and peculiarities of its characters, so that they're funny because of who they are. This takes a whole additional level of writing on top of the plot-manipulation we usually get in popular comedies, and it takes good direction, too.”

However, what’s most notable in the movie is the engaging acting. Ebert credited, “Murphy and Aykroyd are perfect foils for each other in "Trading Places," because they're both capable of being so specifically eccentric that we're never just looking at a "black" and a "white" (that would make the comedy unworkable). They both play characters with a lot of native intelligence to go along with their prejudices, peculiarities and personal styles.” It’s fun to watch them thinking.

The supporting cast has also been given detailed attention, instead of being tasked to stand around as stereotypes. Jamie Lee Curtis plays a prostitute with a heart of gold and a lot of Treasury Bills. Ameche and Bellamy have a lot of fun with the Duke brothers, and Denholm Elliott successfully plays butler to both Aykroyd and Murphy, which is a stretch.

The movie’s invention extends all the way to the famous scenes, which involve, not the usual crazy chase, but a commodities scam, a New Year’s Eve party on a train and a gay gorilla.

One of my sister’s friends recommended this movie to me, so I decided to check this out. I can safely say that this is one of the funniest comedies ever. You should see this if you have not because you will really like this comedy. A type of comedy where people make two polar opposites switch places is something that you would never think happen. However, when you see how everything comes together, you will find it thoroughly enjoying.

Sadly, it won’t be all good movies this month. Case in point, look out next week where I will look at a movie that is really uncomfortable and sickening to watch in “Dan Aykroyd Month.”

The Blues Brothers

Since last month was “Bill Murray Month,” I figured why not keep the flow going and review films that have the great Dan Aykroyd in them? Let’s start off this month with one of my absolute favorite comedies, “The Blues Brothers,” released in 1980.

Roger Ebert started out his review by saying, “This is some weird movie. There's never been anything that looked quite like it; was it dreamed up in a junkyard?” It stars the late John Belushi (James Belushi's older brother) and Dan Aykroyd as the Blues Brothers, Jake and Elwood, characters who were created on “Saturday Night Live” and took on a historic life of their own. The movie is about something of their backgrounds: Ebert said, “The movie tells us something of their backgrounds: They were reared in a sadistic West Side orphanage, learned the blues by osmosis, and, as the movie opens, have teamed up again after Jake's release from the Joliet pen.”

The movie’s story is very simple, to put it slightly. The brothers visit their old orphanage, learn that its future is in jeopardy because of five thousand dollars due in back taxes, and seek to raise the money by getting their old band together and putting on a show. Their journey takes them to several dishonest Chicago locations, including a Van Buren flophouse, Maxwell Street, and lower Wacker Drive. They find their old friends in strange places, like a restaurant run by Aretha Franklin, a music store run by Ray Charles, and a gospel church run by James Brown.

Their drives include encounters with suburban cops, local guys, and Nazis who are trying to stage a demonstration. Ebert noted, “One of the intriguing things about this movie is the way it borrows so freely and literally from news events. The plot develops into a sort of musical Mad Mad Mad Mad World, with the Blues Brothers being pursued at the same time by avenging cops, Nazis, and an enraged country and western band led by Charles Napier, that character actor with the smile like Jaws.” The chase is interrupted here and there for songs, which are mostly very good and filled with so much energy.

Aretha Franklin has one of the movie’s best scenes, in her South Side soul food restaurant. Cab Calloway, as a type of road manager for the Blues Brothers, braces through a wonderful old-style production of Minnie the Moocher. The Brothers themselves sing several unlikely songs. The funniest has the band playing Rawhide in a country and western bar where a wire fence has been installed to protect the band from beer bottles thrown by the patrons.

Ebert noted, “I was saying the musical numbers interrupt the chases.” In actuality, the whole movie is a chase, with Jake and Elwood driving a used police car that seems, as it cruises across suspension bridges from one side to the other, to have the ability to move itself. Ebert mentioned, “There can rarely have been a movie that made so free with its locations as this one. There are incredible, sensational chase sequences under the elevated train tracks, on overpasses, in subway tunnels under the Loop, and literally through Daley Center. One crash in particular, a pileup involving maybe a dozen police cars, has to be seen to be believed: I've never seen stunt coordination like this before.”

What’s a little surprising about this movie is that everything works. “The Blues Brothers” cost an untold amount of money and kept threatening to getting completely out of control. However, director John Landis has somehow made it all work, with a good amount of help from the strongly defined personalities of the protagonists. Ebert said, “Belushi and Aykroyd come over as hard-boiled city guys, total cynics with a world-view of sublime simplicity, and that all fits perfectly with the movie's other parts.” There’s even room, in the middle of the chaos and massacre, for a great amount of grace, humor, and oddness.

You shouldn’t even be reading this review if you haven’t seen this movie yet. Go out and see it now. This is one of the best comedies ever made. I never knew this was based on a famous SNL sketch, but this has stood the test of time. My brother and dad really love this movie, as I do too. This film has the famous quote, “We’re on a mission from God.” Everything that was shot was real and you will have a great time laughing, especially seeing Kathleen Freeman as “The Penguin,” the nun who leads the orphanage, and even a chase by Carrie Fisher. All these great famous singers either make a cameo or star in this film, and you will probably know who each of them are. This film embodies the 80s, so don’t miss your chance to see this great comedy. I have been meaning to check out Chicago to see the famous spots they shot this film, but I haven't had a chance yet. One day I will because that is what Chicago is famous for.

Next week, I will be looking at another funny movie in “Dan Aykroyd Month.”