Cook'd and Bomb'd

Forums => Comedy Chat => Topic started by: DrGreggles on January 05, 2019, 11:14:51 PM

Title: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: DrGreggles on January 05, 2019, 11:14:51 PM
Just been watching this for the first time in bloody years.
Loved it when I was a kid.

Take the music away and it's fucking dreadful isn't it.
Not a laugh to be had.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 05, 2019, 11:24:50 PM
Good car chase bit though.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 05, 2019, 11:25:26 PM
Wrong DrGreggles, it's got plenty of great super-dry humour throughout and if that's not your thing there's all sorts of physical comedy going on too. Also Carrie Fisher's character is much cooler than Princess Leia.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Lordofthefiles on January 05, 2019, 11:37:07 PM
Paper thin script notwithstanding, John Belushi just seems like a narcissistic boor in everything I’ve ever seen him in.
Like he can’t act and no one is willing to tell him!

...and I’m only going easy on Dan Ackroyd because the Fred Garvin - Male Prostitute SNL sketches make me chuckle.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: the on January 05, 2019, 11:37:37 PM
Somebody showed it to me a few years ago in an attempt to impart its brilliance to me. I found it pointless.

Apart from the music, the comedy seems to be reliant on this hum of 'coolness' running throughout that just feels like a load of nothing. Found it flabby and overlong too.

And that bit where the car turns around in mid air. So over an hour in and I'm watching a cartoon now am I? Nah, didn't like it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Blumf on January 05, 2019, 11:56:43 PM
Just found out that the kid trying to steal the guitar in Ray's shop is the chauffeur in Die Hard
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 12:00:04 AM
Oh cheer up, you massive bunch of miserable cunts. The Blues Brothers is a hoot.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 06, 2019, 12:06:43 AM
Oh cheer up, you massive bunch of miserable cunts.

Or (try to) watch Dan Aykroyd's Nothing But Trouble and see what his genuinely bad passion-projects were like.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 06, 2019, 12:18:02 AM
To blazes with the naysayers! It's one of my all time favourites. Aside from it being very funny indeed, the car chases are quite possibly the greatest ever captured on film.

I don't much care to hear Everybody Needs Somebody again though. One to many wedding reception bands have turned it into a cringe worthy cliché. That and Mustang Sally.

And that bit where the car turns around in mid air. So over an hour in and I'm watching a cartoon now am I?
It was a cartoon the whole way though. Carrie Fisher repeatedly tries to blow up Jake and Elwood and they walk away without a scratch each time.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Thursday on January 06, 2019, 12:18:45 AM
They're no Mitchum Brothers are they? John just didn't have the talent of his brother.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Enzo on January 06, 2019, 12:21:31 AM
It has probably my favourite delivery of a line of all time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHlPF_KkBXA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHlPF_KkBXA)
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 01:22:07 AM
And that bit where the car turns around in mid air. So over an hour in and I'm watching a cartoon now am I? Nah, didn't like it.

How could you not pick up on the fact, within the first ten minutes, that the entire film is an absurd, deadpan, live-action cartoon?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 06, 2019, 01:24:17 AM
Just been watching this for the first time in bloody years.
Loved it when I was a kid.

Take the music away and it's fucking dreadful isn't it.
Not a laugh to be had.

Take the music away and it would be about ten minutes long.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: bgmnts on January 06, 2019, 01:31:11 AM
Never understood why it's meant to be so funny. I love the musical numbers though.

Dan Aykroyd's best performance will always be Joe Friday in Dragnet. No contest. I quite like him in Blues Brothers though.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 01:34:37 AM
Take the music away and it would be about ten minutes long.

It would be at least an hour long. Take away the music, and it's two deadpan comedy characters navigating various OTT car chases while dealing with nazis, cops, redneck country bands and Carrie Fisher with a bazooka.

Also, John Candy's performance as an inexplicably cheerful policeman is wonderful.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 06, 2019, 02:15:50 AM
[tag]pearls before swine[/tag]
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Lisa Jesusandmarychain on January 06, 2019, 08:17:14 AM
RIP Deeper Into Movies.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: kalowski on January 06, 2019, 08:29:51 AM
If I'm in the pub with two other mates and I'm going to the bar I regularly say, "Orange whip? Orange whip? Three orange whips."
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Endicott on January 06, 2019, 10:19:57 AM
No Mam, we're Musicians.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: the on January 06, 2019, 10:39:14 AM
How could you not pick up on the fact, within the first ten minutes, that the entire film is an absurd, deadpan, live-action cartoon?

Because cartoons have actual jokes.

Snark aside, I suppose my main difficulty with it is that I've never liked that way of fossilising a stylised 'musical cool', that codified School Of Rock way of saying 'this is the genre, these are landmarks, they are classic and unassailable, learn the tics'. Middle aged dads wearing shades, kids doing exaggerated metal horns and saying 'rawk', cheap scribbles of a much more complicated meaningful thing.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 11:07:27 AM
Because cartoons have actual jokes.

Snark aside, I suppose my main difficulty with it is that I've never liked that way of fossilising a stylised 'musical cool', that codified School Of Rock way of saying 'this is the genre, these are landmarks, they are classic and unassailable, learn the tics'. Middle aged dads wearing shades, kids doing exaggerated metal horns and saying 'rawk', cheap scribbles of a much more complicated meaningful thing.
I know a lot of people have this issue with the film, how it set up some kind of shorthand that "James Brown and Aretha = soul/passion/meaning", the sort of thing that got Green Gartside and various journalists all excited.

Thankfully, the first time I saw it, I was about ten years old and had no idea of any of that, or who any of the people in the film were. I didn't recognise that the dude from Ghostbusters was in it. But I loved the car chases, the scary nun and the silly things like the phone box flying a hundred feet in the air but the brothers just clamber out after filling their pockets full of change.

I still watch it about once a year, still chuckle. And I do think that they had their hearts in the right places by putting a lot of old musicians in it, regardless of how it was taken on.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 06, 2019, 11:16:44 AM
Some of you cunts are impossible to please.

That said, The Commitments is the thinking man's version.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: kalowski on January 06, 2019, 11:30:32 AM
I know a lot of people have this issue with the film, how it set up some kind of shorthand that "James Brown and Aretha = soul/passion/meaning", the sort of thing that got Green Gartside and various journalists all excited.

Aretha, JB and especially Brother Ray are magnificent in it, of course. Cab Calloway none too shabby either.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Nice Relaxing Poo on January 06, 2019, 11:32:25 AM
I too was watching it last night. Still fucking love it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 11:38:08 AM
Aretha, JB and especially Brother Ray are magnificent in it, of course. Cab Calloway none too shabby either.
Aretha Franklin swearing is funny. It just is.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 06, 2019, 12:19:41 PM
It would be at least an hour long. Take away the music, and it's two deadpan comedy characters navigating various OTT car chases while dealing with nazis, cops, redneck country bands and Carrie Fisher with a bazooka.

Also, John Candy's performance as an inexplicably cheerful policeman is wonderful.

Don't get me wrong, The Blues Brothers was one of my favourite movies. Saw it at the cinema with me mates and I don't think we stopped talking about it for months. I haven't seen it in an age because I'm nervous it won't match up to my fond memories (even though I watched the battered VHS tape many times in the mid-eighties). It also got me into soul music, as National Lampoon's Animal House (1978) piqued my interest with Otis Day & The Knights. The funny thing today, is that I would probably enjoy the music of Murph & The Magictones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pxDtai-sEM

Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: EOLAN on January 06, 2019, 12:29:41 PM
While the main focus is on obviously blues music, my favorite part is definitely the country bar section. When it came out on Netflix and was just looking for something short to watch I just went to that section. Also felt it was the part where Belushi looked coolest.

Overall decent film.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 06, 2019, 04:26:15 PM
It's a classic.  One of my favourite comedy films and one of the very very few musicals I like (although you could easily argue that it's not really a musical).

More controversial than the above is that I genuinely quite like BB 2000.  Nowhere near in the same league of course, but I've always had a non-ironic soft spot for it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 04:53:12 PM
While the main focus is on obviously blues music, my favorite part is definitely the country bar section.
Country AND Western.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 06, 2019, 05:13:49 PM
This is my favourite film.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 06, 2019, 05:15:50 PM
one of the very very few musicals I like (although you could easily argue that it's not really a musical).
I'd say it counts by any definition, what with the characters bursting into song and dance numbers at the drop of a hat.
I watched a documentary on BBC4 the other day about the genre and the bloke claimed that American Graffiti counted as a musical, just because it prominently features a lot of pop tunes. By that bizarre criteria, Blues Brothers definitely counts. More bizarrely, it wasn't even mentioned in the documentary.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 06, 2019, 05:18:03 PM
I'd say the fact they're ostensibly the ones acting it out that'd make it a musical.

Simply having lots of music wouldn't quite cut it, basically Blues Brothers counts whereas Super Fly, Accross 110th Street or Dolemite are just films with great music/soundtracks.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 06, 2019, 05:22:37 PM
Traditionally the songs in musicals involve the story and move the plot along.  In BB it's only really Think that does that, all the others are either stage performances or sequences which are completely removed from the story. 

But I've heard and read compelling arguments on both sides of that coin, and Landis himself doesn't consider it as a musical.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 06, 2019, 05:31:45 PM
Nah, James Brown as the preacher, the singing in the country and western bar etc.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 06, 2019, 05:35:16 PM
Nah, James Brown as the preacher, the singing in the country and western bar etc.

Gospel practice and stage performance, respectively.  Jake is moved by what Preacher Brown tells him and the beam of light through the window, not the song per se, and the country and western bar is their first paid gig.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 06, 2019, 05:38:07 PM
It's not just a stage performance (like the end gig say) as they get all pissed off and have to switch to rawhide. I'd say it's part of the plot.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Gulftastic on January 06, 2019, 05:39:02 PM
One of the first films I watched and rewatched when we first got a video recorder in the 80's.Because my mind was like a sponge back then, I still pretty much know it word for word.

It introduced to the music of Sam & Dave and by extension the rest of the Atlantic catalogue. I'll always be grateful.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 06, 2019, 05:48:04 PM
It's not just a stage performance (like the end gig say) as they get all pissed off and have to switch to rawhide. I'd say it's part of the plot.

Yeah, but it's not the (pre-existing) song itself that moves the subsequent events, it's the characters' choices.  It's not a traditional musical plot movement like you find in Grease, Guys and Dolls, West Side Story etc, where the songs and lyrics (which everyone weirdly seems to know) are pertinent to the plot and specific characters.  Rawhide is a TV theme tune and the only country and western song they know.  It's a legit performance by the band on stage in a musical venue, not an original song performed by everyone in the middle of the street.  Like I said, I'm pretty sure Think is the only sequence in the film that IS traditional, whilst Shake Your Tailfeather - another pre-existing song which has nowt to do with the characters or the film's plot - is more akin to a fantasy sequence like in Head or 500 Days of Summer.

Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Gulftastic on January 06, 2019, 05:54:13 PM
I mentioned it in the RIP thread for Aretha, but Matt 'Guitar' Murphy went last year as well.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 05:57:20 PM
Rawhide is a TV theme tune and the only country and western song they know.
Surely they knew others except that - and 'Stand By Your Man' - in order to fill out what was presumably (judging by the bar tab) a lengthy set.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Gulftastic on January 06, 2019, 06:02:40 PM
Surely they knew others except that - and 'Stand By Your Man' - in order to fill out what was presumably (judging by the bar tab) a lengthy set.

Ray Charles had a few hits on the country chart. I bet they used at least a couple of them.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: DrGreggles on January 06, 2019, 06:03:02 PM
Surely they knew others except that - and 'Stand By Your Man' - in order to fill out what was presumably (judging by the bar tab) a lengthy set.

Probably best to not pull at the loose plot hole thread!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 06, 2019, 06:10:38 PM
Surely they knew others except that - and 'Stand By Your Man' - in order to fill out what was presumably (judging by the bar tab) a lengthy set.

The inference (and joke) is they don't know any country and western songs so play the same (presumably) two songs - remember they end the set with Rawhide again, albeit a slower version.  There's also plenty of "rednecks are dumbasses" going on in that sequence, so drunk rednecks are happy with Rawhide and Stand By Your Man all night.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 06:13:29 PM
Surely they knew others except that - and 'Stand By Your Man' - in order to fill out what was presumably (judging by the bar tab) a lengthy set.

I've always wondered about that. Did they just play Rawhide and Stand By Your Man all night? Maybe the crowd were so drunk, they didn't notice?

Ray Charles had a few hits on the country chart. I bet they used at least a couple of them.

Well that's true. Also, they would've been familiar with country-soul crossover standards such as The Dark End of the Street, You Don't Miss Your Water, Patches and so on, so I guess they could've performed around a dozen numbers that night.

Probably best to not pull at the loose plot hole thread!

I think we've comprehensively plugged that plot hole!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: DrGreggles on January 06, 2019, 06:29:40 PM
They also drive the 106 miles to Chicago VERY fast.
But, despite leaving straight after the gig the previous night, they don't get to Steven Spielberg's office until lunchtime!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 06:36:02 PM
They also drive the 106 miles to Chicago VERY fast.
But, despite leaving straight after the gig the previous night, they don't get to Steven Spielberg's office until lunchtime!
If I remember right, they're barely on the outskirts of Chicago by the time daylight arrives. Maybe the gig didn't start until 4am?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 06, 2019, 08:08:16 PM
I think we've comprehensively plugged that plot hole!

Dan Aykroyd is notorious for filling in as much detail as possible in the plots of his movies but this is why his scripts have always been edited way down to half their original length or less, and as such might have plot holes that he does have answers for. There still exists a longer cut of Blues Brothers that answers certain questions like 'where did Elwood get that spray-glue' (he stole it from the factory where he works) and 'how can the car do such impossible stunts' (Elwood routinely parks it next to a power generator which imbues it with energy, OBVIOUSLY).
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Depressed Beyond Tables on January 06, 2019, 08:33:04 PM
Chock full of gags, slapstick, great performances and a kicking soundtrack. What more could you want?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 08:49:49 PM
Dan Aykroyd is notorious for filling in as much detail as possible in the plots of his movies but this is why his scripts have always been edited way down to half their original length or less, and as such might have plot holes that he does have answers for. There still exists a longer cut of Blues Brothers that answers certain questions like 'where did Elwood get that spray-glue' (he stole it from the factory where he works) and 'how can the car do such impossible stunts' (Elwood routinely parks it next to a power generator which imbues it with energy, OBVIOUSLY).
The cut with those scenes is pretty much the standard version now - it's the one you get on DVDs, certainly. There's also Elwood quitting work, lying that he's becoming a Priest. A few others too, that I forget now... think there's Curtis explaining to the band that the gig is for charity.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 06, 2019, 09:08:24 PM
The cut with those scenes is pretty much the standard version now - it's the one you get on DVDs, certainly. There's also Elwood quitting work, lying that he's becoming a Priest. A few others too, that I forget now... think there's Curtis explaining to the band that the gig is for charity.

It's a shame if that longer version is the one most people get to see now though, as a fan I appreciate the extra scenes but I totally see how they'd make the movie drag if you're not already a fan.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: jobotic on January 06, 2019, 09:16:13 PM
The scene in Elwood's room as the trains go by is sublime.

Plus, you know, Bo Diddley's in it.

"I hate Illinois Nazis"

It's great, don't be silly.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: kalowski on January 06, 2019, 09:38:21 PM
Plus, you know, Bo Diddley's in it.
Is he? I don't remember that. He's great in Trading Places: "Burn my fingers, man."
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 09:40:16 PM
Perhaps they've mixed Bo up with John Lee Hooker?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: McChesney Duntz on January 06, 2019, 09:40:32 PM
Nah, The Blues Brothers has a lot of things but it ain't got Diddley.

Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: jobotic on January 06, 2019, 09:40:47 PM
Oh fuck, have I got that wrong, Thought he ran the music shop. Am I getting my films mixed up?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: jobotic on January 06, 2019, 09:41:17 PM
Perhaps they've mixed Bo up with John Lee Hooker?

I wouldn't do that!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 09:41:30 PM
Oh fuck, have I got that wrong, Thought he ran the music shop. Am I getting my films mixed up?
Ray Charles ran the music shop.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 06, 2019, 09:43:01 PM
Ray-cist!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: jobotic on January 06, 2019, 09:43:30 PM
Oh yeah. Pawn shop in Trading Places.

What am I, Barry Kemode?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: pupshaw on January 06, 2019, 09:52:27 PM
Two things:

The extreme parallel parking stunt.
Getting out from under the pile of bricks without any acknowledgement or curiosity about what just happened 
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 10:14:36 PM
Dan Aykroyd is notorious for filling in as much detail as possible in the plots of his movies but this is why his scripts have always been edited way down to half their original length or less, and as such might have plot holes that he does have answers for. There still exists a longer cut of Blues Brothers that answers certain questions like 'where did Elwood get that spray-glue' (he stole it from the factory where he works) and 'how can the car do such impossible stunts' (Elwood routinely parks it next to a power generator which imbues it with energy, OBVIOUSLY).

And here are those very scenes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0uXNTzj-Dk&list=PLDC35789C68FC5CFB (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0uXNTzj-Dk&list=PLDC35789C68FC5CFB)

It's so strange seeing deleted scenes from a film you know inside out, they're like transmissions from a parallel universe.

Aykroyd's first draft was apparently the size of a phone book. He'd never written a screenplay before, so by all accounts it read more like a novel. He's on the autism spectrum, which may explain - and I hope this doesn't sound glib or insensitive - why his self-penned work is so packed with very specific detail. He doesn't have a distinct comic persona as such, he's a character actor, but broadly speaking his work can be defined by a sort of absurd, OTT obsession with linguistic and technical precision. And his sincere belief in the paranormal, obviously (his original draft of Ghostbusters sounds very strange and probably unfilmable).
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 10:18:20 PM
The cut with those scenes is pretty much the standard version now - it's the one you get on DVDs, certainly. There's also Elwood quitting work, lying that he's becoming a Priest. A few others too, that I forget now... think there's Curtis explaining to the band that the gig is for charity.

Ah, sorry, I sent my previous post before reading this one. As Avril Lavigne says, those scenes are of interest if you're a fan, but they do slow the action down. TBB is often dismissed as a bloated film, but I actually think that Landis did a tremendous job of transforming a flabby screenplay into an entertaining musical comedy with no slow spots.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 06, 2019, 10:20:21 PM
Aretha Franklin swearing is funny. It just is.

Don't you blaspheme in here!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 06, 2019, 10:32:07 PM
Marvellous film. I first had it on a VHS recorded off the telly, so hearing all the swearing years later was a real eye opener. Watching it recently, it's amazing how transgressive the car chases in the shopping mall and Chicago city are. You'd never get them made nowadays, what with La Terroristas.... even BB 2000 had to do the car crashes out in a boring field.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 10:42:25 PM
Getting out from under the pile of bricks without any acknowledgement or curiosity about what just happened

Their utter indifference towards all the bizarre things that happen to them is a great running gag. We're not supposed to think "Oh wow, these guys are so cool", it's more that they exist within this weird, impervious bubble.

They're not cool in the comically heightened Fonzie sense, they're depicted as shabby, likeable losers: a wee fat bloke and a gangly nerd who inexplicably front a shit-hot rhythm and blues band. Aykroyd and Belushi sincerely adored that music, but I very much doubt that either of them ever thought of themselves as anything other than geeky enthusiasts who weren't fit to touch the (tremendous) hems of their idols' garments.

The film would be unbearable if it was just a couple of earnest white blokes saying "Now this is REAL music, folks." It's not that at all, it's an energetic and eccentric tribute to the life-affirming spirit of soul music, rhythm and blues and rock and roll. 

It's also quite gritty, aesthetically speaking. Just look at the abject misery of Elwood's one-room apartment; despite being a big, wacky comedy, it's still rooted in '70s New Hollywood neo-realist gloom. That doesn't work against the comedy, Landis made it work to his advantage. It's a very funny, silly film, but it's mired in oil and dirt.

Sorry, I've written far too much about The Blues Brothers in this thread. It's one of my favourite films, so I'm prone to droning on about it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 10:47:25 PM
Marvellous film. I first had it on a VHS recorded off the telly, so hearing all the swearing years later was a real eye opener. Watching it recently, it's amazing how transgressive the car chases in the shopping mall and Chicago city are.

Fortunately, no one was killed during the making of that particular John Landis film.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 06, 2019, 10:54:35 PM


It's so strange seeing deleted scenes from a film you know inside out, they're like transmissions from a parallel universe.


The John Lee Hooker one is funny... they're transformed from the coolest authentic bluesmen ever into sub-Rutles parody wackiness
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 11:06:20 PM
Fortunately, no one was killed during the making of that particular John Landis film.
Belushi's coke intake throughout probably edged him closer to his own subsequent rolling of a seven.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Blinder Data on January 06, 2019, 11:06:33 PM
Watched it for the first time a few months ago. It's a strange film with a curious low energy. I don't remember laughing much, in fact bemusement was more likely - more like The Bemuse Brothers!!!!!11

But the musical numbers are pretty great. And the car chase is fantastically exciting and OTT - they don't make 'em like that anymore!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 06, 2019, 11:33:07 PM
the coolest authentic bluesmen ever

Where do people keep getting this concept from? It's very strange to me seeing folks missing the point that the Blues Brothers exist in the same kind of universe as your Pee Wee Hermans and Elviras as bizarre cartoon people played by comic actors who are meant to look out of place everywhere they go.

Edit: Now I'm wondering if you meant that's how they perceive themselves within the film in which case, as you were.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 06, 2019, 11:34:28 PM
They look like they're from the CIA or something.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 11:36:38 PM
Where do people keep getting this concept from? It's very strange to me seeing folks missing the point that the Blues Brothers exist in the same kind of universe as your Pee Wee Hermans and Elviras as bizarre cartoon people played by comic actors who are meant to look out of place everywhere they go.
I think he was referring to John Lee Hooker, who does look cool as ever doing his thing, but in the deleted scene gets into a squabble with another fellow over which of them wrote "Boom Boom".
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 06, 2019, 11:43:01 PM
Watched it for the first time a few months ago. It's a strange film with a curious low energy. I don't remember laughing much, in fact bemusement was more likely - more like The Bemuse Brothers!!!!!11

But the musical numbers are pretty great. And the car chase is fantastically exciting and OTT - they don't make 'em like that anymore!

I do think that The Blues Brothers is the American equivalent of Withnail and I. No, bear with me here. The odd, downbeat humour of the protagonists either tickles you or it doesn't. Like Withnail, The Blues Brothers also benefits from repeated screenings. The big musical numbers and ludicrous car chases are all very well, but the humour is fundamentally quite subtle. Not that Withnail contains big musical numbers and car chases - if only - but they're both films about harmlessly dissolute characters which become funnier with subsequent viewings.

Or maybe you just think it's unfunny and overrated, which is entirely fair enough.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 06, 2019, 11:44:43 PM
I think he was referring to John Lee Hooker, who does look cool as ever doing his thing, but in the deleted scene gets into a squabble with another fellow over which of them wrote "Boom Boom".

Really? I swear I watched all of the deleted scenes in order and didn't catch that part at all. Welp, that's enough booze for me tonight.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 06, 2019, 11:47:25 PM
Really? I swear I watched all of the deleted scenes in order and didn't catch that part at all. Welp, that's enough booze for me tonight.
I *think* there's an extra cut scene, of Jake and Elwood leaving the Soul Food cafe and they're still going at it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: checkoutgirl on January 06, 2019, 11:53:48 PM
Gospel practice and stage performance, respectively.  Jake is moved by what Preacher Brown tells him and the beam of light through the window, not the song per se, and the country and western bar is their first paid gig.

You're being very pernickety there. It's a musical and the music moves the plot along. Landis is wrong. Directors are occasionally wrong about their films.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shaky on January 07, 2019, 12:01:45 AM
Watched it for the first time a few months ago. It's a strange film with a curious low energy. I don't remember laughing much, in fact bemusement was more likely - more like The Bemuse Brothers!!!!!11

But the musical numbers are pretty great. And the car chase is fantastically exciting and OTT - they don't make 'em like that anymore!

Not sure I understand - it's "low energy" but then you go on to praise the (many) musical sequences and car chases? The film is intentionally grungy and dry-witted around those bits, sure, that's what makes it work for me. That constant ebb and flow. The film is both a live-action cartoon and quite a gritty snapshot of slum life in the late 70's.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 07, 2019, 12:18:18 AM
I think he was referring to John Lee Hooker, who does look cool as ever doing his thing, but in the deleted scene gets into a squabble with another fellow over which of them wrote "Boom Boom".

Correct! They turn on a "bit of business" and start a comedy skit, it's not very becoming
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: bgmnts on January 07, 2019, 12:26:39 AM
Cab Calloway looks like the coolest mother fucker in the film
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 07, 2019, 12:37:54 AM
Watching it recently, it's amazing how transgressive the car chases in the shopping mall and Chicago city are. You'd never get them made nowadays, what with La Terroristas.... even BB 2000 had to do the car crashes out in a boring field.

I remember an interview with Landis from the early eighties revealing that the Piccadilly Circus smash up scene in An American Werewolf In London (1981) was trickier to shoot than The Blues Brothers (1980) Downtown car chase sequence because Westminster Council were so difficult and had asked for more money than the Chicago City Council.

 Here is a snippet of a different interview from 2009.

Everyone remembers the Piccadilly Circus scene. London was quaintly chaotic as far as filming went - it was basically a case of persuading the local bobby on the beat, and if they said you could do it, you were sort of OK. So I put on a free screening of The Blues Brothers in the Empire Leicester Square and invited 300 members of the Metropolitan police. They loved it - and, whaddaya know, suddenly I had permission to shoot in Piccadilly Circus.

I got two February nights, between 1am and 4am and was allowed to stop traffic three times, for two minutes maximum. So we rebuilt the Circus off-site and rehearsed the big crash scene many times and my crew were drilled like a Formula One team, so when it came to the big bus crash we could clear it up and do another take in seconds. Vic Armstrong, who was the bus driver, went on to design many of the James Bond stunts. Boy, we worked fast.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 07, 2019, 08:21:35 AM
Correct! They turn on a "bit of business" and start a comedy skit, it's not very becoming

NOYADINT! NOYADINT!!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Mr Farenheit on January 07, 2019, 02:04:11 PM
"Mainly French cuisine... no, sir ... Mayor Daley no longer dines here ... he's dead, sir."

'Curl Up and Dye Beauty Salon'



What's wrong with that? You miserable slobs
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 07, 2019, 02:36:43 PM
Mrs. Murphy: May I help you boys?

Elwood: You got any white bread?

Mrs. Murphy: Yes.

Elwood: I'll have some toasted white bread please.

Mrs. Murphy: You want butter or jam on that toast, honey?

Elwood: No ma'am, dry.

[Mrs. Murphy gives him a look, then turns to Jake]

Jake: Got any fried chicken?

Mrs. Murphy: Best damn chicken in the state.

Jake: Bring me four fried chickens and a Coke.

Mrs. Murphy: You want chicken wings or chicken legs?

Jake: Four fried chickens and a Coke.

Elwood: And some dry white toast please.

Mrs. Murphy: Y'all want anything to drink with that?

Elwood: No ma'am.

Jake: A Coke.


I copied that from IMDB, but only because I couldn't be bothered to type it - I know that little exchange off by heart, all the beats and gestures as well.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Dogbeard on January 07, 2019, 03:25:02 PM
I can't say I've ever found it to be comedy gold, but it does tickle me and has a certain tone (as touched on by someone else, a sort of bleakness combined with zany crackpot humour, and of course the high energy music) that really works. The music above all makes it, though. Wonderful soundtrack. My kids particularly love Think, Rawhide and Minnie the Moocher. My four-year-old constantly asks for the latter. Timeless stuff.

It's a classic.  One of my favourite comedy films and one of the very very few musicals I like (although you could easily argue that it's not really a musical).

More controversial than the above is that I genuinely quite like BB 2000.  Nowhere near in the same league of course, but I've always had a non-ironic soft spot for it.

I like the bit in BB2000 where they clearly thought, "let's out-do the first film with this pile-up" and they just have police car after police car flinging themselves into the mound of cars, with far less grounding in reality or sense than any car sequence in the first film. It's a glorious bit of self-conscious ridiculousness. Didn't find the film too memorable overall though, despite having some cool tunes.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 07, 2019, 03:41:40 PM
I do think that the Blues Brothers was ruined a bit in the 90s by dickheads dressing up as them a lot and there were stage shows of it that were terminally unable to fuck off for about five years.

That whole culture of making it fashionable for pricks and show-offs took away the sense of the film as a fun, standalone romp.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Rizla on January 07, 2019, 03:48:40 PM
I was thinking about the soul food scene the other day there - did they discuss how they would play it before going in? Like, let's place a shibboleth of a food order and see if Matt and Blue Lou twig it's us? I think they're quite disrespectful of Mrs Murphy.

I love this film so much, but none of those musos can act their way out of a paper bag. Doesn't matter does it? "Damn, we were so close!"
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 07, 2019, 04:33:29 PM
I love this film so much, but none of those musos can act their way out of a paper bag. Doesn't matter does it? "Damn, we were so close!"

"Chicken wire???"
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 07, 2019, 04:34:10 PM
I was thinking about the soul food scene the other day there - did they discuss how they would play it before going in? Like, let's place a shibboleth of a food order and see if Matt and Blue Lou twig it's us? I think they're quite disrespectful of Mrs Murphy.

I love this film so much, but none of those musos can act their way out of a paper bag. Doesn't matter does it? "Damn, we were so close!"
There's at least one other scene of Elwood making himself some white toast, so presumably it's his favourite (only?) food.

I did think Mr Wonderful was pretty good in the restaurant scene, and Willie Hall's delivery of "you got the money you owe us, motherfucker?" after his jovial greeting was funny.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 07, 2019, 04:44:34 PM
Yeah, Alan "Mr Fabulous" Rubin is easily the best actor in the band, which is probably why he got the most lines. Matt "Guitar" Murphy, not quite so much.
Donald "Duck" Dunn's gibberish interjections are very funny too. "If the shit fits, wear it!"
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 07, 2019, 04:51:09 PM
Bah, Mr Fabulous, not Wonderful. I'll blame a tough shift work and not having had me dinner yet.

As for Duck's lines, I'll pick "we had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline!"
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Rizla on January 07, 2019, 05:07:46 PM
Of course the other thing about this film, like Spinal Tap, is if you've ever made music for a living you will quote lines from it whether you want to or not. "Like, when we first arrived, the barlady didn't charge us for the beers...". "My brother likes to write the checks on the glovebox with the engine running" "Pardon me but I don't think you'll find anything wrong with the action on this piano" etc
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Endicott on January 07, 2019, 05:21:40 PM
They're good boys but they made a lot of racket at night.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 07, 2019, 06:33:18 PM
I do think that the Blues Brothers was ruined a bit in the 90s by dickheads dressing up as them a lot and there were stage shows of it that were terminally unable to fuck off for about five years.

That whole culture of making it fashionable for pricks and show-offs took away the sense of the film as a fun, standalone romp.

Bit harsh. The temerity of these people! How on earth would a stage show you probably haven't seen affect your enjoyment of the original movie?

Reminds me of ushering in NYE 1994 at a local nightclub that had a Blues Brothers karaoke tribute act as part of the night's entertainment. It was a bit lame but the late teens crowd seem to love it. Me and my brother's miserable mate were leaning on the balcony watching the - *cough-spit* - 'fun' on the dance floor as these two geezers in black hats, shades and suits bopped up and down on stage singing to a backing track of Gimme Some Lovin'
My brother's miserable mate was faintly disgusted.

"This is OUR generation's music! Not theirs! Wankers! Why don't they leave it be and just listen to their own dance music shite!"

Bear in mind, we were only in our late-twenties ourselves and I had to remind him we were toddlers in the sixties, so really, It's not OUR generation's music either.  What a tit.


Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 07, 2019, 07:06:48 PM
Deleted scene 18 has been in every version I've seen I think. It sticks with me, I like it.

(https://giant.gfycat.com/HauntingFeminineAmphibian.gif)
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 07, 2019, 11:11:19 PM
Yeah, Alan "Mr Fabulous" Rubin is easily the best actor in the band, which is probably why he got the most lines. Matt "Guitar" Murphy, not quite so much.
Donald "Duck" Dunn's gibberish interjections are very funny too. "If the shit fits, wear it!"

When they're talking about prison food and Matt says "yeah, they were all pretty bad" it's one of the worst deliveries I've ever heard. Still funny though.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 07, 2019, 11:15:21 PM
I do think that the Blues Brothers was ruined a bit in the 90s by dickheads dressing up as them a lot and there were stage shows of it that were terminally unable to fuck off for about five years.

That whole culture of making it fashionable for pricks and show-offs took away the sense of the film as a fun, standalone romp.

A fella I know has been playing Jake in a tribute band consistently since 1985 and is still at it this year, it's amazing how this movie can direct and define a person's life like that. But hey, you do what you gotta do
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: marquis_de_sad on January 08, 2019, 01:18:12 AM
Regarding this idea that The Blues Brothers isn't a musical: in this scene (https://youtu.be/zZ5gCGJorKk?t=67) they move in time to non-diegetic music.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 08, 2019, 01:19:44 AM
Bit harsh. The temerity of these people! How on earth would a stage show you probably haven't seen affect your enjoyment of the original movie?

Reminds me of ushering in NYE 1994 at a local nightclub that had a Blues Brothers karaoke tribute act as part of the night's entertainment. It was a bit lame but the late teens crowd seem to love it. Me and my brother's miserable mate were leaning on the balcony watching the - *cough-spit* - 'fun' on the dance floor as these two geezers in black hats, shades and suits bopped up and down on stage singing to a backing track of Gimme Some Lovin'
My brother's miserable mate was faintly disgusted.

"This is OUR generation's music! Not theirs! Wankers! Why don't they leave it be and just listen to their own dance music shite!"

Bear in mind, we were only in our late-twenties ourselves and I had to remind him we were toddlers in the sixties, so really, It's not OUR generation's music either.  What a tit.

Yep. I daresay that most of those Blues Brothers tribute shows are naff, but so what? That stuff is so ephemeral, it doesn't matter. Let people enjoy an evening of bopping about to a couple of shades-clad blokes singing shit cover versions of BB cover versions if they want to.

I also don't think that those shows have tarnished the reputation of the film, which, if anything, has become more revered as the years roll by. The reviews were pretty mixed at the time, but today it's widely regarded as a classic. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, it clearly managed to survive the '90s ubiquity of twats in hats murdering Sweet Home Chicago.   
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 08, 2019, 01:24:05 AM
Deleted scene 18 has been in every version I've seen I think. It sticks with me, I like it.

(https://giant.gfycat.com/HauntingFeminineAmphibian.gif)

I love all the big musical numbers and crazy stunt set-pieces, but little moments like that make the film for me.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: clarkgwent on January 08, 2019, 07:30:52 AM
Regarding this idea that The Blues Brothers isn't a musical: in this scene (https://youtu.be/zZ5gCGJorKk?t=67) they move in time to non-diegetic music.

It is clearly to what Cab n the boys are playing (if I've got non-diegetic right) tho.

PS I was once in a small cafe when "Shake Your Tailfeather" came on 6Music. The two women running the place did the dance while waitressing/cooking. When it finished they just carried on working as usual, like it was the most normal thing in the world. Have any other readers had a similar experience?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 08, 2019, 11:54:55 AM
It is clearly to what Cab n the boys are playing (if I've got non-diegetic right) tho.

PS I was once in a small cafe when "Shake Your Tailfeather" came on 6Music. The two women running the place did the dance while waitressing/cooking. When it finished they just carried on working as usual, like it was the most normal thing in the world. Have any other readers had a similar experience?

In a cafeteria in Venice Beach. The waiters and waitresses all looked and acted like movie stars and kept bursting into impromptu dance moves to what came on the radio. Clearly, they were budding/ resting actors waiting to get spotted by that producer that happens to be passing through. Quite common over there.

I wonder if short order chefs behaved similarly in the greasy spoons down Wood Lane near TV Centre?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 08, 2019, 11:57:42 AM
I once slam danced to Puddle of Mudd in a Toby Carvery
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 09, 2019, 12:22:19 PM
Bit harsh. The temerity of these people! How on earth would a stage show you probably haven't seen affect your enjoyment of the original movie?

Eh, what.  I did see the stage show for some reason but that’s besides the point.  The point was that for ages it was cool for people to dress in black suits and trilbies, and these people were often being drunken dickheads roaming around and yelling Blues Brothers quotes into the ether (or the ears of whoever was walking past).  It felt like half a decade of continuous stag nights, which just happen to not be my cup of tea.

Not sure why it’s “harsh” to remark that this had a negative impact on my memories of the film and the associations I have of various lines and songs from it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 09, 2019, 03:26:47 PM
Eh, what.  I did see the stage show for some reason but that’s besides the point.  The point was that for ages it was cool for people to dress in black suits and trilbies, and these people were often being drunken dickheads roaming around and yelling Blues Brothers quotes into the ether (or the ears of whoever was walking past).  It felt like half a decade of continuous stag nights, which just happen to not be my cup of tea.

Not sure why it’s “harsh” to remark that this had a negative impact on my memories of the film and the associations I have of various lines and songs from it.

Fair enough, if that was your experience.

Christ knows where some of you people have hung out over the years, some of the stories you tell. I have knocked about in some real dives and been to many a rowdy pub night during that period and sure, you had the occasional group of dickheads in attendance but I don't recall all these blokes running around dressed as The Blues Brothers singing and quoting the film. But, if that happened to you regularly, then what a drag.

I used to dress in a black mod suit often in the eighties (2Tone).  Into the nineties (post-New Wave chic?) I continued and it certainly wasn't regarded as "cool" in any way shape or form. Then, it looked like I was trying to be a Reservoir Dog ( I wasn't) . Of course, Pete Docherty made that look fashionable ten years after that but I'd stop wearing them by that point.  I have since adopted the style again. (fat cunt)
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 09, 2019, 03:59:41 PM
The point was that for ages it was cool for people to dress in black suits and trilbies, and these people were often being drunken dickheads roaming around and yelling Blues Brothers quotes into the ether (or the ears of whoever was walking past).  It felt like half a decade of continuous stag nights, which just happen to not be my cup of tea.

Didn't happen though did it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 09, 2019, 04:17:34 PM
Eh, what.  I did see the stage show for some reason but that’s besides the point.  The point was that for ages it was cool for people to dress in black suits and trilbies, and these people were often being drunken dickheads roaming around and yelling Blues Brothers quotes into the ether (or the ears of whoever was walking past).  It felt like half a decade of continuous stag nights, which just happen to not be my cup of tea.

They were quoting lines from the film? I'm not doubting your experience of pissed-up dickheads roaming around dressed as the Blues Brothers, that was undoubtedly a '90s stag night/lads phenomenon, but in my personal experience they were just twats who adopted an easily recognisable fancy dress disguise, as opposed to people - comedy nerds, if you like - who knew the film to such an extent that they'd quote dialogue from it.

Apart from, I guess, "We're on a mission from God", you'd really have to be a deep dish BB fan to quote lines of dialogue from what is essentially a cult, esoteric comedy film.

Apologies if that comes across as needlessly pedantic, but I'd be surprised if the people you're referring to had ever seen the film more than once (if at all).
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 09, 2019, 05:23:42 PM
They were quoting from the film, yeah, or doing vague impressions or whatever.  I only explained it in detail becaise upthread somebody took umbrage at me expessing that my enjoyment of the film was retrospectively marred; I wasn't expecting this to be quite so picked apart to be honest.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 09, 2019, 05:34:07 PM
Well, I mean, it didn't happen. You made it up.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 09, 2019, 05:35:09 PM
Well, I mean, it didn't happen. You made it up.

Sorry that I don't get this but I don't get it.

If I'd made it up I would have bothered saying something more entertaining.  Or I guess you're just doing some schtick.  I dunno; I'm tired.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 09, 2019, 05:47:18 PM
I thought it would be funny to just pointlessly doubt what you were saying. I still think it is somewhat funny in concept, but the execution is maybe lacking. I hope you feel better soon.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 09, 2019, 06:55:55 PM
They were quoting from the film, yeah, or doing vague impressions or whatever.  I only explained it in detail becaise upthread somebody took umbrage at me expessing that my enjoyment of the film was retrospectively marred; I wasn't expecting this to be quite so picked apart to be honest.

I didn't take umbrage, just rather baffled by these hordes of blokes from Blues Brothers Island regularly marauding through pubs and parties in the nineties.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 09, 2019, 07:01:39 PM
I didn't take umbrage, just rather baffled by these hordes of blokes from Blues Brothers Island regularly marauding through pubs and parties in the nineties. I just didn't encounter this.

Could it have been just a City of Bath thing somehow?  I've no idea but assumed it had been more widespread.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 09, 2019, 07:03:33 PM
I've never seen it, but even the thought of people enjoying themselves is making me angry.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 09, 2019, 07:10:19 PM
Could it have been just a City of Bath thing somehow?  I've no idea.

Ach, don't matter. I believe you and I understand a bit where you're coming from. For me, it was hearing the songs too often on the radio in 1990. Must've been a tenth anniversary thing? 

What I found odd hearing about the stage show was that The Blues Brothers had been relocated to the UK and were Northern apparently?

Here's a scathing review. Ouch.

When last I saw The Official Tribute To The Blues Brothers in the West End in 1996 (already five years into its life), "dreary farrago" was only the most succinct of my condemnations of it. Another five years on, it returns to the Whitehall Theatre for (please God) its final appearance, and I can't even muster the energy to be angry.

My mistake last time was in assuming that there would be even the slightest vestige of a dramatic component to the evening. If you just go in expecting a workmanlike but mediocre R&B revue, your opinion of it might be a high as zero. Even the "police raid" has gone, though the rap version of "Two Little Boys" inexplicably remains. Simon Foster and Brad Henshaw as Elwood and Jake (more or less) do some in-character patter between songs, but it's really all about the music. So does the music cut the mustard?

Yes and no. Foster has a nice line in Dan Aykroyd-like bass vocals and poker face, and also blows a mean blues harp. Henshaw has stopped trying vocally, and sings the songs the way he wants to rather than the way the late John Belushi did (or would have done); he still does the moves and wears the suit, shades and (oddly misshapen) hat, but there's no real attempt at character in his singing. The band are younger than ever (like policemen) and are clearly proficient, but turn in a disturbingly slow, jackhammer arrangement of "Riot In Cell Block #9", and probably the most soulless "Do You Love Me" I've ever heard. The trio of Bluettes on backing vocals – Mike Henry, Alana Maria and Joe Speare – are hot, but (with the exception of Maria's powerful rendition of Aretha Franklin's "Think") their turns are entirely gratuitous and unrelated to canonical BB-dom.

The big selling point of this incarnation is the guest appearance of Antonio Fargas, better known as Huggy Bear from Starsky And Hutch. He grins and capers a treat, but knows that he can't really sing: he delivers as much of "Minnie The Moocher" as he can get away with in a kind of jive Sprechgesang, and sings as little of the encore of "Living In America" as he can get away with, full stop.

But the thing about this show is that it is explicitly an imitation of an imitation: an announcment before Foster and Henshaw abseil onto the stage declares that they are wanted for impersonating Elwood and Jake. It's like a forgery of a Warhol Brillo box, and what's the point of that except to make money? Even a normally enthusiastic press-night audience gave up on every clapalong within eight bars of the performers stopping their chivvying. Director David Leland must have fallen on hard artistic times indeed to have continued his association with the show for so long. Maybe "dreary farrago" isn't so wide of the mark after all.

Written for the Financial Times.

Copyright © Ian Shuttleworth; all rights reserved.

Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 09, 2019, 07:23:36 PM
Yes, that sums up my memory of that show.  Brings it all back, as well.  I'd forgotten about the "impersonating Elwood and Jake" aspect until just then.

The rap version of Two Little Boys went "Two little, HA HA; two little... BOYS" over and over again.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 09, 2019, 10:31:56 PM
Here it is (audio only):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfIDeAJlneU
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: non capisco on January 09, 2019, 10:53:28 PM
Here it is (audio only):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfIDeAJlneU

Jesus christ. That is a Bromley high street "busking entertainer" level of dreadful.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Phil_A on January 09, 2019, 11:21:45 PM
The big selling point of this incarnation is the guest appearance of Antonio Fargas, better known as Huggy Bear from Starsky And Hutch. He grins and capers a treat, but knows that he can't really sing: he delivers as much of "Minnie The Moocher" as he can get away with in a kind of jive Sprechgesang, and sings as little of the encore of "Living In America" as he can get away with, full stop.

Fuck me, I saw a Blues Brothers live show in the mid 2000s (the same one, I assume) and Fargas was still in it then, I thought at the time he'd just turned up for a guest spot as he wasn't busy that evening or something. Was he really in the show that long? Desolation.

There was no Two Little Boys rap though, for which it sounds like we should've been grateful.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: notjosh on January 10, 2019, 06:38:09 AM
Think I must have seen that show about 3 times at Darlington Civic Theatre as a kid and I had a cracking time. In '90s North Yorkshire a dreary farrago was a great Saturday night.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 10, 2019, 11:42:13 AM
What possessed the producers to include an electro pop version of Two Little Boys when they had such a rich source of soul music to tap from? If the show was 'A Tribute To Cannon & Ball Are The Boys In Blue'  I'd cut them some slack but fuck me!  I wonder if Antonio Fargas would have made a cameo in the Eric Sykes role?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Dusty Substance on January 16, 2019, 02:39:19 AM
Take the music away and it's fucking dreadful isn't it.
Not a laugh to be had.


I re-watched it a few months ago for this first time in nearly 20 years, came to this forum immediately afterwards and drafted several paragraphs, but you've summed up my thoughts in two, succinct sentences.

It's Belushi, mostly. He's fucking awful. A totally dis-likable performer, he's one of those guys who doesn't seem to mind if nobody else is enjoying themselves, just as long as he is. He was rubbish in the SNL clips I've seen him in and I bet he was even more dreadful in person. I have vague fond memories of Neighbors,  the other film he did with Aykroyd shortly after, but that probably wouldn't be any good if I was to revisit it.

But, yeah, there's no denying the fantastic music in The Blues Brothers.





Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 16, 2019, 10:31:14 AM
Blues Brothers 2000, go on.  I bet you’re all gagging to talk about that, and now I have opened up permission.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 16, 2019, 11:00:28 AM

I re-watched it a few months ago for this first time in nearly 20 years, came to this forum immediately afterwards and drafted several paragraphs, but you've summed up my thoughts in two, succinct sentences.

It's Belushi, mostly. He's fucking awful. A totally dis-likable performer, he's one of those guys who doesn't seem to mind if nobody else is enjoying themselves, just as long as he is. He was rubbish in the SNL clips I've seen him in and I bet he was even more dreadful in person. I have vague fond memories of Neighbors,  the other film he did with Aykroyd shortly after, but that probably wouldn't be any good if I was to revisit it.

But, yeah, there's no denying the fantastic music in The Blues Brothers.

That's a bit harsh. I've always felt that Belushi was overrated, but not because he looked like he was enjoying himself at the expense of anyone else's fun. On the contrary, for a supposedly wild and crazy performer, he always came across as rather stiff, distant and uncertain. People go on about his expressive face, but apart from an undeniable ability to waggle his eyebrows he never seemed fully engaged with whatever he was doing. A nervous performer? The drugs probably didn't help.

However, his impassivity is absolutely perfect for the role he plays in The Blues Brothers. Also, there's a certain grace to his physicality: a squat little man with the untrained soul of a dancer. He really does come to life during the musical numbers.

Mind you, Akyroyd shows him up by ostensibly doing exactly the same thing in the film. He's deadpan, inexpressive, but times his delivery with so much more precision and subtlety. He really taps into the absurdity of his character, so much so that Elwood comes across as rather endearing. He was/is a better actor than Belushi.

Anyway, I think it's a very funny and hugely entertaining film. I may have mentioned that already in this thread.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: DrGreggles on January 16, 2019, 11:10:46 AM
Blues Brothers 2000

Never seen it.
Remember the trailer for it making it look so shit that it made me angry.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 16, 2019, 11:34:02 AM
Blues Brothers 2000 is an atrocity, but it's only related to the first film in the sense that Jaws: The Revenge exists within the same universe as Jaws.

I've read arguments from presumably rational people that BB 2000, for all its terrible faults, contains some decent musical numbers. It doesn't. Even this scene starring Wilson Pickett and Eddie Floyd, which was presumably intended as a highlight, is flatly directed and utterly bereft of the original film's crowd-pleasing kinetic energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2pYV7LtKT4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2pYV7LtKT4)

The difference between The Blues Brothers and Blues Brothers 2000 is that the first film was made by irreverent young rhythm and blues enthusiasts with one foot in the grungy aesthetic of '70s American cinema and another in early SNL/National Lampoon anarchy, whereas the sequel was written by a fat middle-aged man who owns a chain of 'heritage' blues bars.

Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: famethrowa on January 16, 2019, 12:11:51 PM
Blues Brothers 2000, go on.  I bet you’re all gagging to talk about that, and now I have opened up permission.

It's a strange one alright... the studio obviously wanted it to be a kid's movie, so we have Elwood smiling, a kid Blues Bro, "magic" going on, but then we also have a lengthy and gratuitous strip club scene? And a long long song of bluesdad heaven at the end featuring BB King, Clappo, Dr John and Lou Rawls et al, any kid would be snoozing their way through that one. A sad moment is Elwood waiting outside the jail for Jake who never arrives, but even sadder is seeing how the Health and Safety crew have damped down the car crashes so they can only happen in an open field under supervision. Good to see the old faces back again though and good to see Paul Shaffer finally get a look in, but it's mostly cheese.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: TheMonk on January 16, 2019, 12:50:13 PM
I do think that the Blues Brothers was ruined a bit in the 90s by dickheads dressing up as them a lot and there were stage shows of it that were terminally unable to fuck off for about five years.

That whole culture of making it fashionable for pricks and show-offs took away the sense of the film as a fun, standalone romp.
This was going on in the mid 80’s according to this. Exhibit A:
https://youtu.be/TfbHSLjqpQA
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 16, 2019, 12:52:07 PM
The difference between The Blues Brothers and Blues Brothers 2000 is that the first film was made by irreverent young rhythm and blues enthusiasts with one foot in the grungy aesthetic of '70s American cinema and another in early SNL/National Lampoon anarchy, whereas the sequel was written by a fat middle-aged man who owns a chain of 'heritage' blues bars.

The scenes where giant skeletal ghost cowboys ride through the sky and where the whole Blues Bros band are turned into voodoo zombies are at once completely out of tune with the original movie and yet still unmistakably pure Dan Aykroyd.  Just like Nothing But Trouble, it's a terrible movie but somehow oddly interesting due to the inherent weirdness of Aykroyd's writing.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Shit Good Nose on January 16, 2019, 01:35:40 PM
Blues Brothers 2000, go on.  I bet you’re all gagging to talk about that, and now I have opened up permission.

I already did that on page 1...
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: kalowski on January 16, 2019, 08:56:52 PM
Blues Brothers 2000 is an atrocity, but it's only related to the first film in the sense that Jaws: The Revenge exists within the same universe as Jaws.

I've read arguments from presumably rational people that BB 2000, for all its terrible faults, contains some decent musical numbers. It doesn't. Even this scene starring Wilson Pickett and Eddie Floyd, which was presumably intended as a highlight, is flatly directed and utterly bereft of the original film's crowd-pleasing kinetic energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2pYV7LtKT4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2pYV7LtKT4)

The difference between The Blues Brothers and Blues Brothers 2000 is that the first film was made by irreverent young rhythm and blues enthusiasts with one foot in the grungy aesthetic of '70s American cinema and another in early SNL/National Lampoon anarchy, whereas the sequel was written by a fat middle-aged man who owns a chain of 'heritage' blues bars.
Fucking hell that's miserable. I love the song, love Pickett and Floyd and Goodman and Aykroyd. And I hated every second of that.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Twed on January 16, 2019, 09:25:30 PM
If you think (2000) the movie is bad, check out the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2tMpVTin1A

BOING BOING BOING
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Jockice on January 17, 2019, 03:42:23 AM
I do think that the Blues Brothers was ruined a bit in the 90s by dickheads dressing up as them a lot and there were stage shows of it that were terminally unable to fuck off for about five years.

That whole culture of making it fashionable for pricks and show-offs took away the sense of the film as a fun, standalone romp.

Can't be as bad as those dickheads who dress up for the Rocky Horror Picture Show. A film/production which like The Blues Brothers I've never seen and probably never will.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: thecuriousorange on January 17, 2019, 06:18:54 AM
Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) was the only time I rented out a video and switched it off before the end.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 17, 2019, 08:15:41 AM
If you think (2000) the movie is bad, check out the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2tMpVTin1A

BOING BOING BOING

This game is alright.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: MojoJojo on January 17, 2019, 11:01:37 AM
The game for the first film was a bit of a surprise, as it was a platformer and was good.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 17, 2019, 11:28:13 AM
The game for the first film was a bit of a surprise, as it was a platformer and was good.

The SNES game is great. Rock rock rock rock n' roll!
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ignatius_S on January 18, 2019, 01:11:49 PM
…Aykroyd's first draft was apparently the size of a phone book. He'd never written a screenplay before, so by all accounts it read more like a novel. He's on the autism spectrum, which may explain - and I hope this doesn't sound glib or insensitive - why his self-penned work is so packed with very specific detail. He doesn't have a distinct comic persona as such, he's a character actor, but broadly speaking his work can be defined by a sort of absurd, OTT obsession with linguistic and technical precision…

Reportedly, Aykroyd had never read a movie screenplay, let alone written one and from various accounts, it sounds he had no guidance about format etc., so it’s not overly surprising that he turned out something like the first draft. My feeling is that people often have an idea of what a script looks like, which bears little resemblance to what they do. There’s an episode of Colin’s Sandwich, where Mel Smith’s character agrees to write a film script but is too embarrassed to admit that he doesn’t know how and turns out a wordy tome, which I feel had more than kernel of truth to it.

Then again, when he first wrote Ghostbusters, he knew what the format was like.

My gut feeling is Aykroyd is – or, least was – a writer with an incredibly fertile mind, sometimes in the mould of someone like Marty Feldman. In a book about Round the Horne, Barry Took said that Feldman flowed with ideas and could write streams of material, but which worked best when someone like Took, who could refine that writing into something workable. However, Aykroyd was clearly able to write sketches for SNL that didn’t need editing by others – so maybe when it came a film script, he just let loose creatively.

It’s well documented about so many contemporaries looked at Aykroyd in awe for his ability to write material effortlessly; IIRC,there’s some good stuff about this in the Belushi biography, Wired. Going form memory, but Aykroyd joked about being a writing machine and on some material, used a machine/robotic name rather than his own.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: MojoJojo on January 18, 2019, 03:34:13 PM
I'm just posting to clear the edit bug, but I'll mention in passing that if you buy the Blues Brothers sound track off google play music or amazon streaming it only has 6 tracks. Which is a bit crap.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 18, 2019, 05:43:58 PM
I'm just posting to clear the edit bug, but I'll mention in passing that if you buy the Blues Brothers sound track off google play music or amazon streaming it only has 6 tracks. Which is a bit crap.

You're better off getting The Definitive Blues Brothers Collection which is only £6 on Amazon. It's a 2-disc, 35 song set that includes all of the original soundtrack album plus most of their best-selling live album 'Briefcase Full of Blues' which came out a couple of years before the movie.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: icehaven on January 18, 2019, 09:59:39 PM
Blues Brothers 2000 (1998)

What the fuck?!! Mind blown.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: The Culture Bunker on January 18, 2019, 10:03:59 PM
I remember the VHS copy of the Blues Brothers I must have gotten for Christmas 1998 or so had a trailer and "behind the scenes" footage for BB 2000 at the end of it. I'm pretty sure my reaction was "I'm not sure about this".

I did end up watching it a few years later, when I was an unemployed bum and loaned it from the library. It didn't do much to raise my spirits. I recall Lee and Herring did a skit on the lines of "Real Film Endings" that had John Goodman and Dan Aykroyd pissing on the grave of John Belushi.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Replies From View on January 18, 2019, 10:06:52 PM
What the fuck?!! Mind blown.

2000 was only ever bunged at the end of stuff for a brief spell in the late 90s when everyone realised there was only a short span of time left when it could be used and still feel futuristic.

There was a curry place in Bath that renamed itself CURRY 2OOO for a few years (beyond the point it was futuristic, I think, so it only somehow evoked a sense of mouldiness in the end); can’t say it made their food any less painful to eat than it was before.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: marquis_de_sad on January 18, 2019, 10:19:26 PM
South Park parodied this by having 2000 at the end of their episode titles until they got bored and stopped.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 18, 2019, 10:57:54 PM
Reportedly, Aykroyd had never read a movie screenplay, let alone written one and from various accounts, it sounds he had no guidance about format etc., so it’s not overly surprising that he turned out something like the first draft.


That's what I meant to say earlier, yes. Not only had he never written a feature-length screenplay before, he'd never actually read one. You're right, though, he'd surely been in the business long enough to know that screenplays aren't generally breeze-block sized epics packed with detailed stage directions and character backstories? Not that I've read his original script, of course, but that's what it was like according to Landis

My gut feeling is Aykroyd is – or, least was – a writer with an incredibly fertile mind, sometimes in the mould of someone like Marty Feldman. In a book about Round the Horne, Barry Took said that Feldman flowed with ideas and could write streams of material, but which worked best when someone like Took, who could refine that writing into something workable. However, Aykroyd was clearly able to write sketches for SNL that didn’t need editing by others – so maybe when it came a film script, he just let loose creatively.

He certainly did have an incredibly fertile mind, but I agree that he evidently needed someone to edit and hone his ideas into a filmable piece of work. I've only seen the first 30 minutes of Aykroyd's sole auteur effort Nothing But Trouble - I had to switch it off, as it was such a depressingly unfunny, nausea-inducing mess - but I think it's probably fair to cite it as proof that, when left to his own devices, he lacked the discipline to make a coherent film. An imaginative writer, no doubt about that, but some of his film ideas were over-ambitious and poorly thought out.

It’s well documented about so many contemporaries looked at Aykroyd in awe for his ability to write material effortlessly; IIRC,there’s some good stuff about this in the Belushi biography, Wired. Going form memory, but Aykroyd joked about being a writing machine and on some material, used a machine/robotic name rather than his own.

Which might explain the verbose, stream-of-consciousness nature of some of his writing? That can work within the context of a relatively short, offbeat comedy sketch - establish zany premise, milk it for laughs, then exit sharpish - but it's difficult to sustain that over the length of a film. The Pythons managed it, but they benefited from having each other as sharply critical sounding boards and editors.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 18, 2019, 11:10:59 PM
The scenes where giant skeletal ghost cowboys ride through the sky and where the whole Blues Bros band are turned into voodoo zombies are at once completely out of tune with the original movie and yet still unmistakably pure Dan Aykroyd.  Just like Nothing But Trouble, it's a terrible movie but somehow oddly interesting due to the inherent weirdness of Aykroyd's writing.

Absolutely. It's a scene that could only have emerged from the idiosyncratic mind of Dan Aykroyd. It's sort of brilliantly terrible, the only bit in an otherwise pointless film where you think, "Well fuck me, I wasn't expecting that." 
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Sebastian Cobb on January 20, 2019, 01:08:30 PM
I just find 2000 a waste of good musicians. Had the opportunity and fucked it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ballad of Ballard Berkley on January 20, 2019, 02:37:49 PM
I just find 2000 a waste of good musicians. Had the opportunity and fucked it.

BB 2000 is a waste of everything, it has no reason to exist.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Twed on January 20, 2019, 05:49:02 PM
When I first saw it (received it as a stocking filler around 1999) I didn't know who Paul Shaffer was and found him absolutely petrifying to behold. It made the voodoo witch stuff a bit confusing and scary to me, because of his weird head.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Twed on January 20, 2019, 05:52:26 PM
Also rewatching that scene now, I hate how close-minded Elwood is at the idea of playing Caribbean music. Ignorance about culturally-significant music genres is the exact opposite of the Blues Brothers ethos, isn't it?
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: kalowski on January 20, 2019, 06:45:53 PM
Also rewatching that scene now, I hate how close-minded Elwood is at the idea of playing Caribbean music. Ignorance about culturally-significant music genres is the exact opposite of the Blues Brothers ethos, isn't it?
(https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1437743/thumbs/o-DAN-570.jpg?2)
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: St_Eddie on January 20, 2019, 07:03:30 PM
BB 2000 is a waste of everything, it has no reason to exist.

Yeah, that year wasn't the best for contestants on Big Brother, it must be said.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: madhair60 on January 21, 2019, 09:07:06 AM
Also rewatching that scene now, I hate how close-minded Elwood is at the idea of playing Caribbean music. Ignorance about culturally-significant music genres is the exact opposite of the Blues Brothers ethos, isn't it?

He's conscious of cultural appropriation. To an extent
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Ignatius_S on January 22, 2019, 01:29:49 PM
That's what I meant to say earlier, yes. Not only had he never written a feature-length screenplay before, he'd never actually read one. You're right, though, he'd surely been in the business long enough to know that screenplays aren't generally breeze-block sized epics packed with detailed stage directions and character backstories?…

In terms of length, I think he did – when Aykroyd delivered the first draft, he jokingly disguised it as a telephone directory.

However, having a rough idea of what the finished article is one thing, having the abilities and resources to execute that concept is another. My gut feeling is that there were two things at play.

One is how important this project – or rather the Blues Brothers – was to Aykroyd and Belushi. I had a quick look to see if I could find my copy of Wired, but will have to go from memory – one of the things that struck me in the book is how invested the two were in it. The film being a passion project is an understatement. When someone is that invested, I think it can be hard to have the kind of objectivity to decide what should (and shouldn’t) go in – that’s compounded by the other factor (IMO), his inexperience in screen writing.

If someone doesn’t have experience as a screen writer, I feel not knowing how much detail to go into or what information is superfluous, is a common issue. I think people to be surprised by how sparse scripts tend to be and requires a certain skillset.

Actually, I guess this is ties into a third factor – the film business. Although Aykroyd had experience as a sketch writer, to let him go off and write the script with no experience and no guidance was a gamble.


He certainly did have an incredibly fertile mind, but I agree that he evidently needed someone to edit and hone his ideas into a filmable piece of work. I've only seen the first 30 minutes of Aykroyd's sole auteur effort Nothing But Trouble - I had to switch it off, as it was such a depressingly unfunny, nausea-inducing mess - but I think it's probably fair to cite it as proof that, when left to his own devices, he lacked the discipline to make a coherent film. An imaginative writer, no doubt about that, but some of his film ideas were over-ambitious and poorly thought out….

Hee, I’ve never seen that one. I’ve been put off but what I’ve heard, however, I’ve also read some more positive write-ups, so maybe one day….


…Which might explain the verbose, stream-of-consciousness nature of some of his writing? That can work within the context of a relatively short, offbeat comedy sketch - establish zany premise, milk it for laughs, then exit sharpish - but it's difficult to sustain that over the length of a film. The Pythons managed it, but they benefited from having each other as sharply critical sounding boards and editors.

Quite possibly – I would also say that from what I’ve read, I get the sense that the SNL material Aykroyd produced was written tightly as well as to a high standard.

It’s possible that when working in such a restricted format, he found it easier to write with precision that a more unrestrained one. In any case, it had more experience with the former to hone his craft.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Brundle-Fly on January 22, 2019, 02:07:50 PM
Also rewatching that scene now, I hate how close-minded Elwood is at the idea of playing Caribbean music. Ignorance about culturally-significant music genres is the exact opposite of the Blues Brothers ethos, isn't it?

Perhaps, he's not ignorant about Carribean music but just simply doesn't like it.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Twed on January 22, 2019, 02:15:27 PM
I suppose it makes more sense than a blues band not knowing any country and western.
Title: Re: The Blues Brothers (1980)
Post by: Avril Lavigne on January 22, 2019, 02:21:40 PM
Hee, I’ve never seen that one. I’ve been put off but what I’ve heard, however, I’ve also read some more positive write-ups, so maybe one day….

I think Nothing But Trouble is really worth seeing at least once, despite not being a good movie by any standard.  It's just so, so bizarre, it's one of the few movie experiences outside of David Lynch's work that I find literally comparable to a nightmare or a fever dream.  It's like something your mind would patch together as you slept after getting food poisoning and watching some old bad episodes of Saturday Night Live back to back with Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2.