I really don't get all the hate, i LOVE this movie. Sigh, i am alone on this one aren't i?
Yes, yes you are.
i agree with you, i love the movie. It´s not a good movie at all, but i really like it. However, i think in my case is 90% thanks to the soundtrack jeje
Nope. I saw a sneak peak of it when I was ten, because my mother's fiance at the time led and played Jake in one of the main local tribute bands. Maybe it's 'cause I was ten, but I loved it, and it still has a special place in my heart.
I don't "love" the movie, but it's still a watch-able flick none the less, and the original is my Bible.
As far as sequels go, there are far, far worse out there.
No, you're not alone. It's a musical tribute to the first one with some nods thrown in to things that happened in it. Did it really need to be more? After 18 years of not being a franchise, you don't have a sequel. You just have a memorial.
And yeah, this review is unfair. There were car crashes. There was a goal, even if the goal was literally "Find something to do." Yes, it's not as good as the first one, but bad? It's a freakin' musical! It's a threadbare set of excuses to get from one musical number to the next. So was the first movie, though they had actually funny interstitials that built this whole world of scummy lowlife musician criminals well. That was 1980. Things sucked worse. People were poorer. This was 1998, in a decade with prosperity we might not see again for a long time.
Yeah, MST3K did things like this, cutting plot scenes out of Mitchell so they could joke more about the plot not making sense, but no mention of a battle of the bands (a hacky reason, so missed opportunity). He didn't even bite at the "Robert K. Weiss" joke, a nice Aykroyd-has-his-head-up-his-own-ass opportunity.
Bluegrass segment was weak? What a coincidence, the country music segment was the weakest part of the original.
I'm some guy you don't know, and Caddyshack sucks.
The country club scene in the original was not the weakest section, the weakest section was the part where they were at the gas station and Elwood started chatting up some random girl; that was out of place, stupid, and it served no point other than to be a waste of time.
The country club scene was actually the most memorable part of the original in my book, right next to the mall chase (which is why I purchased Midnight Club 2 DUB EDITION 6 years ago).
In my book, musicals in general are bad. Honestly I liked Chicago, but only in the later portion of it. Also, I enjoyed Cabaret because the first time I saw it, I saw it in an old local theater that served amazing coffee (that and the play is pretty kick ass in general, but only if it's portrayed in a gentle, non dramatic manner).
But both of the Blues Brothers movies succeeded in being comedic enough to pull it off. They were both nonsensical and random. As much as this movie didn't need a sequel, they did the best they could with what they had left in them, and honestly I applaud what they came up with.
Face it, this movie could have been a billion times worse: they could have had the story take place back in the stone age.
Awful movie. Great soundtrack.
Like Adam Sandler's movies, shitty yet have awesome soundtracks. (to be fair, even his better movies have awesome soundtracks.)
It was pretty good. But The Commitments soundtrack is way better.
This is on my list of movies I will never watch, right next to Transformers 2 & 3
If you keep a list of movies you will never watch you really have some priority issues. Can't blame you for your choices, though.
His priorities are perfectly fine.
Keeping a list of movies you'll never watch is a good way to save time in life; if you know you're not going to like something, why waste your time? That's why reviews like this exist; these guys sit through crappy films all the way through just so we don't have to do the same.
I mean, hey, I made a list of my top 10 least favorite films of all time (along with descriptions of why I hate them). I took me a while, but it helped me get a lot off my mind, honestly had I not have created that list the topic would have bothered me for quite a while.
"I remember leaving thinking I would have rather sat through "Caddyshack II" again. "
Ouch. You shouldn't say stuff you can't take back.
I'm not taking that back, gun to my head, I'd rather sit through Caddyshack II than Blues Brothers 2000.
those are some seriously sadistic kidnappers!
Caddyshack II is much better than Blues Brothers 2000. At least Caddyshack II has a farting horse.
Me personally, I'll sit through a marathon running of Howard the Duck than Blues Brothers 2000 or Caddyshack 2
I'd rather watch Blues Brothers 2000 than I would watch Lion King. At least Blues Brothers 2000's soundtrack didn't turn the United States music culture into a factory for useless, power hungry Choir girls and Choir boys.
Real musicians don't need to take choir; they do their own research, they play the guitar in their rooms, they write their own shit at age 15, they don't take field trips to disney world, and they don't give a SHIT about Broadway. Real musicians are all about the music, they're not about the spotlight, they're not about the popularity, they're risk takers who are focused on making a big noise in the world.
Blues Brothers 2000 is like a musician that got a bad agent to manage his business, you can see he's still the same guy, but he's not making decisions on his own.
Lion King is like that pompous ass choir girl you knew who once called the cops on your best friend because he said she had gorgeous eyes.
I'd rather hang out with the unlucky musician, than i would with the psychotic choir girl.
My point is, this movie's bad, but not as bad as The Lion King.
You know what's truly ironic? The fact is that alot of people really don't give a shit about how film sequels affect the previous film. Frankly i don't think this sequel effects it's predecessor in any way: a bad sequel is one that is terrible but still receives a ton of popularity, an example would be Iron Man 3.
I liked Iron Man 2, it's my favorite of the Iron Man series for 3 reasons:
1) It features a Rolls Royce Phantom
2) The plot makes sense, and presents a deeper look into Tony Starks character; the side that isn't that likeable. Everybody has a dark side, and Tony's dark side is one that just tries to make the most out of life and doesn't give a shit about anything else. I love that they gave us that perspective, it makes me actually like his character because he's realistic and faulty but still doesn't give a shit because he's got dollars out the ass.
3) The villain was very well introduced; he's probably the most in depth Marvel villain ever to exist.
@Rhody I've never met anyone that outright hated "The Lion King". It's not my favorite, but I thought it was a childhood favorite (then I saw "Hunchback"), and even now it's a close second. I agree, the music is a little (read: mostly) overrated, but I thought the story was fine. I liked Hans Zimmer's orchestration better than most of the songs.
I disagree that it was the cause of the major suckitude of modern day music. I think it was partially Disney's fault, but not "The Lion King"'s.
"Is there any money in it for me?"
Yeah I outright hate the Lion King, not just because of the music, but also the pathetic plot, the unlikable characters (with the exception of Scar), and the terrible chemistry between a Shakespearian Plot, and Elton John Soundtrack, and a Disney Cartoon; none of those things mix at all.
Honestly, I was rooting for Scar the whole damn movie, I wanted Simba to die so fucking badly because his character is just SO annoying and hateable. I admired Scar for not taking any shit from anyone; he even went as far to kill his own brother just to prove that nothing would ever stand between him and his dream of destroying the circle of life. I even admire that! I even admire his dream of destroying the circle of life; that is interesting, that is change, that is a story I can grow and love.
Take this into consideration: Conan The Barbarian was a story of a boy who's father was killed by a leader of a demonic snake cult, after growing up, Conan avenged his father's death and became a legend.
Lion king is the exact same story, only weaker. Simba's father was an arrogant prick who would never get off his brother's back; it's like how in Hercules, Zeus aggravated Hades which gave Hades a motive to overthrow him. (ever notice how often Disney reuses plot devices?)
I would rather sit and listen to a well written tale of a Lion who kills his brother and makes a pact with some hyenas in order to destroy all life on earth, than I would listen to a crappy revenge story with unnecessary romantic conflicts, and just plain unlikable heroes.
Honestly, I think I would have liked the movie more if Scar killed Simba's father, then killed Simba in cold blood; then succeeded in his transformation of the world only for it all to turn on him in the end. That's interesting, and that deserves a fucking Elton John soundtrack.
I rest my case.
Rhody, this is the eighth time I've read your rants about how much you hate the Lion King. We get it - a harmless film from twenty years ago still bothers you to the point where you undeservedly cast blame on the soundtrack for destroying modern music. It is almost as bad as labeling Obama as the anti-Christ or saying Back to the Future is racist.
I'm just using The Lion King as an example of a terrible film that is painful to watch; many of the films that the nostalgia critic reviews are dwarved by the crapfest that The Lion King puts it's viewers through. It's not that it simply destroyed the culture of our music, it also sucks as a movie.
I know I've said this many times, but hey, it's a good example that I love to use. Besides bashing The Lion King makes choir girls choke on their own arrogance, and frankly there's nothing that makes me more happy than seeing a choir girl miserable. Thanks for your input John.
I hope Brad does the Random Button again and gets The Lion King
I don't see how Scar's dream is to destroy the Circle of Life. I get that the Circle of Life can be seen as a caste system, but I don't think Scar wanted it destroyed. I just think that he wanted the throne.
Also, it's a family movie. I wouldn't want to see an animated movie about a lion killing his family in cold blood and trying to destroy all life on Earth. Especially since he wasn't trying to destroy all life on Earth.
Also, "The Lion King"'s impact on modern music is minuscule, at best. Happy teeny-bopper musicals have been around for much longer. "The Lion King" is just a movie that many people like and you don't. I admit, the movie has very visible flaws, but it's not the reason for the destruction of quality music. I hate "The Ring" but I'm not going to say that it was the only reason modern horror movies are mostly terrible.
Rhody, get over it. Music has been going downhill since the late 80s and The Lion King has nothing to do with that. Even if you disagree, film music is a different beast from what's being played on the charts, and as far as I am concerned we have had some great film scores since The Lion King.
As for the film itself being terrible... eh. Before growing out of it I enjoyed it as a kid. The story, regardless of whether or not Shakespearean influence or accusations that it is a rip off of White Kimba aside, still gives the main character an arc that plays out in three acts. A lot of songs and characters are annoying (typing this out is putting the Circle of Life on loop - I hope you're satisfied) but will amuse small children. The animation is also pretty to look at. Overall, definitely above an F but more of a C-. Regardless, I don't spend my days overanalyzing twenty year plus old movies - that's what I watch Brad for.
I agree, The Lion King could have been far worse.
But I disagree with whoever says it didn't impact modern music. Allow me to explain:
When Disney uses real musicians to create their soundtracks, that's like false advertising. Disney in itself is not a company that fairs well with music, if anything all it does is mimic broadway (and trying to recreate something as pathetic as broadway is like taking a piece of shit out of a toilet and trying to create a clay sculpture of it).
Worse part i: Lion King has also been used to grow Broadway's popularity, so now we have to wait another hundred years before we get to see Broadway crumpled by a wrecking ball.
The Lion King is not just a film I dislike, it's an icon I dislike. It's the swastika of all things related to choir, and the man who made the soundtrack wasn't even into that shit! It's like saying "Do this and you'll become successful in this way." Then all the kids get in line, and end up singing at Spider Man The Musical.
I'm not saying it hurt modern music, but it set a unrealistic standard for music in general. Now every teenage girl with a loud voice thinks she can become Elton John: and that's what society thinks as well. But that's fucking bullshit! That's like saying anyone could be a Mozart, or a Beethoven, or hell even a musician as pathetic as Justin Beiber, but the truth is that all those guys got into the music the right way, they started independent and young, and they worked their way to the top.
Lion King is kind of like what would happen if we lived in a world where people took Popeye The Sailor seriously; and sed people then decided to live a life where they eat spinach for breakfast, lunch, and diner. They're all idiots that could be doing something more productive but refuse to let go of their ignorance.
If Blues Brother's 2000 became a cult classic, it would stand right beside Lion King. But luckily the world didn't make the same mistake twice, thank Jesus fucking Christ.
"I'm not taking that back, gun to my head..." lol
Just flashed back to the scene where Jackie Mason using that gun/hairdryer.
Even TEXASVILLE was a better sequel than this. (Last Picture Show sequel where we see everyone still there and even bigger losers now in their 40s, the end.)
Randy Quaid was in "Texasville" who was in "Caddyshack II" with Dan Aykroyd, who was in "Blues Brothers 2000". It's a circle of shitty sequels!
This movie is awful and I am sorry that you paid to go watch this by yourself. This movie just makes me feel sad because it makes me think of the first one and how much better that one is and how much the world misses John Belushi
Earthbound is a far better sequel.
Throughout this review I was almost CERTAIN that the ending twist was going to be that the 10 year old kid is Elwood Blues from the past who somehow was brought by God into the future in order to ensure that Elwood can reform the band: which is why the kid was so uninvolved throughout the movie, it also explains how the kid knew how to play the harmonica, it also explains why he was in an orphanage, and it even explains how he knew how to pickpocket a police officer.
But no.... that would have been too deep of a twist for this movie. They had to just make him some random kid with no purpose. I personally don't find anything wrong with adding supernatural elements into this movie: but the fact that they serve no purpose whatsoever really makes the audience feel like their time is being wasted.
I initially thought that the kid was supposed to be Juliet Blues from the past, because that would make up for the absence of John Belushi.
Otherwise I sort of disagree with the nostalgia critics views on the randomness of the movie's plot. Be fair: the first blues brothers was random in that the audience wasn't able to guess where it would go next, then everything links up in the end. This movie tried to step over the line that had been presumably established in the first film in order to recreate the original atmosphere. In other words: by not doing the same thing, they did the same thing.
But let me be clear, I do agree that this movie didn't do a good job in recreating the atmosphere because it didn't link up any of the plot devices.
1) brining back the original band cast: complete waste of time, serves no purpose other than to be filler.
2) adding a voodoo witch, doesn't link up to anything else.
3) having the orphanage closed down at the beginning; although it was an interesting plot device that gave the audience a sense of closure that offers the chance of a new beginning (just like having Jake Blues die at the beginning), it really didn't end up leading to anything interesting.
I must admit though, I liked the ghost riders in the sky thing. I laughed at it, and I'm sure that was the intentional purpose; to weird the audience out to the point that they find it funny. That kind of element is exactly what the original was all about.
Think of it, the original had Illinois Nazis, diner dancing, an insane police chase, a random conflict in a country club, and even a homicidal ex girlfriend who would constantly try to kill them.
Finally I would like to point out a major flaw in Nostalgia Critics argument: the underwater scene. He says it's not realistic, it's not...so what? Does anyone remember the scene in the original blues brothers where the ex girlfriend blew up the hotel they were staying in? And somehow they just got up out of the rubble like cartoon characters? My point is that the original wasn't all that realistic either, not to even mention the scene where the Nazi car falls from a broken bridge that is higher than the empire states building... as funny as that scene was, it made no sense.
I'm a huge fan of the Cinema Snob, but I've always disliked Nostalgia Critics style of trying to appeal to a large audience using logic and memes; Cinema Snob is more appealing to me because
1) he reviews films that are without a doubt bad movies.
2) he uses a character, just like Colbert uses a character on the report; that's more entertaining than listening to some normal guy rant about something, that's why I watch Colbert instead of CNN News: Colbert makes serious things funny, and so does the Snob.
3) The Cinema Snob usually just jokes about stuff, he doesn't go too deep into plot devices or themes, he just scoffs at it. And me, as a viewer, can easily relate to that. Movies are all about giving a person an experience, and The Snob does a good job summarizing that experience rather than covering all the logical bullshit that Vulcans feed off of.
To be honest, I would have been happy to hear Cinema Snob give at least one statement about this film, rather than just coming in and not doing anything for the rest of the video. But hey, it's a good review, and I agree with quite a few things in it. Thumbs up.
I think that the Nostalgia Critic is sometimes too negative. It puts you in an umcomfortable position if you disagree with him, because most of his jokes are insults, and her nowadays just take everything a little too far, In My Opinion. Despite this, i agree with what he says a lot, and i don´t think he is a bad performer.
I just think that I too, like you, enjoy the style of The Cinema Snob much more.
The Nostalgia Critic is a character too dude
you are right chris... i think that then in my case, is just a preference between characters.
Yeah I suppose the critic is a character, but he expresses himself in such a personal manner that it's really hard for me to tell. I feel like he tries to level with the audience a bit too much and that makes it come off as unnatural. I dunno we all have our opinions.
But seriously, I thought the kid was Juliet Blues from the past, I thought that from the very beginning. But I was wrong... and disappointed.
Like that would have been cool right?
I also have to admit, when it comes to the Nostalgia Critic, I have a hard time agreeing him sometimes, sometimes he attacks movies that really don't disserve criticism: I strongly disagree with his opinion on Ghost Dad, and I also disagree with his opinion on Battlefield Earth; I personally loved both of those movies.
Ghost Dad wasn't supposed to be funny, it was supposed to be strange and wacky, and it did a great job at that. It threw in strange rules and scenarios that kept the audience entertained and intrigued. I personally can't see how any mortal being can hate such an innocent movie.
As for Battlefield Earth... let's just say it's not anywhere near as bad as Battlefield Los Angeles. And the plot is a lot more entertaining. It's actually one of my favorite Sci Fi Action Movies, certainly one of the most memorable ones.
But I still give credit where it's due, Nostalgia Critic is one of the best critics out there, he knows how to stir blood in the water, it's just that sometimes he stirs it where there shouldn't be any sharks needed. Never the less, I love his stuff; but he does piss me off sometimes. It took me a while to calm down after watching his Ghost Dad review.
My apologies... for some reason it sent that last message 4 times.
I really don't know why I watch the Nostalgia Critic anymore. His shtick has all but dried up for me and he's a terrible writer and a terrible critic as well. He really needs to retire the Nostalgia Critic and start up a new project that isn't Demo Reel.
Nostalgia Critic has his moments, and I enjoy quite a few of his videos; particularly his reviews of The Care Bears Movies.
I just find Cinema Snob to be more dark and daring; he's not afraid to make himself look different in the public eye.
I respect the Nostalgia Critic, but his style does annoy me at times. I still watch his stuff.
I don't want to make any waves, this is just my opinion.
But seriously, I thought for sure the kid was Elwood from the past! That would have been fricking awesome!
WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IN THIS MOVIE!??
Oh Brad, I always knew you were a Flintstones appliance animal.
The movie is bad, but there's another good thing besides the soundtrack
the HUGE car pile up (I think it's in the Guiness Book of Records too)
Well.... now we see why it took so long to make this sequel, they probably had to wait 18 years just to get a big enough budget to buy all these fricking cars!
I haven't seen a car pile like this since I last played with my Hotwheels toys as a 8 year old.
I didn't realize people still bitch about Prometheus
Yeah, I thought Prometheus wasn't that bad.
A bit unnecessary, but not a bad movie. It made a lot of sense but all it did was answer questions that nobody ever asked.
I still enjoyed it though.
Ditto. The writers on Cracked.com still paint it as a bad movie and it incenses me. I enjoyed it, but I do think Ridley Scott made a mistake in listening to Fox Studios' recommendations about who to hire and how to go about it. I hope in a sequel (which will have different writers), they iron out the kinks.
Cracked is staffed by a bunch of self-perpetually depressed assholes. Your life will be happier if you stop paying attention to them. Take my word for it.
Half their articles are still entertaining and funny to read.
The articles about academic subjects such as science, history, or even pop culture are usually consistently good in quality and I don't regret reading those. The main staff who run Cracked aren't good critics, however, and I can do without the sanctimonious attitudes they have been expressing for the past four to five years.
Even though you were only in for a few seconds, I still enjoyed this vid.
Yeah, the movie's not as good as its predecessor, but there's no way that it's half as bad as Doug makes it out to be. Hell, he intentionally missed parts of the ending in order to make the credits scene look lame. He cut out the part where Elwood tells the kid to put on his seatbelt, before he does the same. The end shows that whatever's coming up next, it's going to be crazier than anything we've seen so far, because Elwood has never buckled up before. It's a joke where the viewer's imagination fills in the blanks.
Also, for all that carnage he showed from the first movie, it sure is interesting that he missed the pileup in the second movie, which held the record for the biggest car pileup ever put to film.
I absolutely agree with you that he went a little overkill on this one. But he was right on a lot of things...
...... unlike his reviews on Ghost Dad and Battlefield Earth, I still don't understand why he hated those so much, those are both fantastic movies.
I must admit though, this review was entertaining. I don't say that with a bitchy choir boy smile (burn the faces of all who give such a smile), I say that with a stern look of genuine 70's Jim Rockford style approval.
Honestly i've never gotten that pissed at Nostalgia Critic; the only critic I've ever gotten pissed at was this girl on a reading website who gave Ernest Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" TWO STARS. That book is beyond perfect, if someone stood right up in my face and said "Sun Also Rises can suck my dick it's so bad," I would (no joke) beat that person to a fucking pulp, well... maybe if it's a guy i wouldn't do that (I would just look at him like he's a fucking idiot), but if a girl said that to my face I'd turn her into a misshapen pile of human meatloaf.
Ghost Dad and Battlefield Earth are both widely considered to be terrible films, so it's not like NS is alone in his opinion of them.
I don't even understand how anyone could dislike either Ghost Dad or Battlefield Earth. I could write a 6 page essay on why those movies are good.
Why do people hate either of them? I watched both of Nostalgia Critics reviews: none of the complaints he had meant anything, he was just nit picking about every small unimportant detail. Frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with either of those films, literally, there's nothing wrong with either one.
To me it's like Dan Akroyd, knowing he'd never get another Ghostbusters sequel off the ground went fuck it and made a ghostbusters movie out of Blues Brothers.... What a discredit to John Belushi's memory!
what the fuck is this lame asshole doing on this site?
If you don't want lame assholes on the website, you can start by showing a good example and stay out of the comments section.
Actually Sigh raises a perfectly good question.
The answer is simple though: The Snob posted this video because he is featured in it for a few seconds, and since so many people watch Nostalgia Critic, The Snob figured it would be a good idea to use this video as a tool to help bring people over to his website.
Simple enough, there really isn't a reason to complain about it.
Posting stupid comments under the name 'sigh'.
what's with all the Sigh hate?
It's not like DarkBee is that badass of a name, the name sigh at least is a little bit more deep and mysterious. DarkBee is a name some 15 year old would name his BeeDrill in Pokémon.
Needed more Brad.
like all of you i love the original and fuck i even have the novelization of the original film as well. but when i learned this was being made back than other me asking WHY? how is it going to be handled?
when i saw it i went in with REALLY Extremely low expectations and honestly i did end up enjoying it. i even bought the soundtrack too. i didn't expect to like it at all but i did. i do agree with Doug though about that ending it's really fucking stupid. and
i also agree with why introduce a kid into the mix? my 1st thought when 1st saw it was are they going to make a 3rd one? well it's been at least 15 or 16 later since i 1st saw and i i guess not.
i doubt they will cause to many of the bandmates have since died. and plus kathleen freeman, james brown etc. either i enjoy it and i watch once in a blue moon.