There are some movies that just shouldn’t be made. OK, there are a lot of movies that just shouldn’t be made.

Specifically, I’m talking about sequels to movies that don’t need sequels. Which, I guess, describes most sequels ever made.

“Blues Brothers” is one of those movies that should have been left alone. For whatever reason, it has reached an almost mythical level of cinematic significance.

The image of Jake and Elwood Blues, with their dark shades and dark suits, has become a cultural icon. The movie had attitude; it had catchy music and dance numbers; it had John Belushi.

The fact the movie wasn’t all that good doesn’t really matter. Before you all go off on me for that blasphemous remark, I challenge you to watch “Blues Brothers” now, as an adult, while remaining completely sober. It isn’t easy to do.

Now, almost 20 years after the original, “Blues Brothers 2000” is making its way into theaters.

It isn’t so much a sequel as a sloppy remake of the first. In fact, the entire basic story is exactly the same. Some of the scenes are even the same.

Both movies open with one of the brothers getting out of prison. Then, both movies spend the first hour gathering up old buddies to get the Blues Brothers Band back together.

Aretha Franklin even sings the same song in both movies. The first time she sang “Respect” it was in a diner, this time in a Mercedes dealership.

The original and the sequel then send the newly reunited band out on the road where they play for a bunch of rednecks, all the while being pursued by the unbelievably inept authorities.

Throw in a big police chase, huge police car pile-up and a bloated, not-as-good-as-it-should-be closing musical number and you’ve got a movie.

There are a few new elements in “2000,” but they aren’t really more than plot contrivances. Take young Buddy, a ten-year-old who goes along with Elwood for the ride, for example.

Why is he there? Because that scary nun from the original movie asked Elwood to mentor the boy. Why did she do that? So that we could watch a cute kid for seven hours.

Maybe the movie wasn’t actually seven hours long, but it started to feel like it.

One major reason “Blues Brothers” became a classic is the presence of John Belushi. He brought energy and unpredictability to the movie. More importantly, he brought humor.

In “2000,” Elwood’s new partner is Mighty Mack, played by John Goodman. Now, Goodman is a likable enough fellow, but he’s no Belushi.

Of course, the weak plot and sluggish pacing of the original didn’t matter as much because of some great musical numbers.

I love the scene were the boys sing “Rawhide” over and over while in that cage at the country bar, getting beer bottles thrown at them.

In “Blues Brothers 2000,” unfortunately, most of the music numbers fall flat. Especially the ones that involve Aykroyd “singing.”

The lip syncing was absolutely horrible. It was like watching one of those dubbed Japanese samurai flicks where the lips and the audio don’t come close to matching.

At least in the original the songs seemed to serve a purpose, advancing the plot somewhat.

In “2000,” many of the songs seem to be inserted only so the film makers could say, “Look who we got to be in our movie; James Brown” or “We’re so cool because B.B. King/Eric Clapton/Stevie Winwood/Aretha Franklin/Eryka Badu/ (insert one of a dozen names here) is in our movie.”

It’s the movie equivalent of name dropping at a party. And what exactly does Steve Winwood have to do with the blues?

“Blues Brothers 2000” is just a pointless movie. It’s way too long and not very funny. So, if you really need a Blues Brothers fix, go out and rent the first one. But have a few drinks before you watch it.

1 1/2 stars out of five

---

Mike Milik is a senior in advertising from West Des Moines.