Cameron H.

I agree. I listened today and it wasn’t that bad. I think the only numbers they really didn’t seem that into were the Blues Brothers ones.

I think this movie really suffers the most from its lack of focus. It's obvious that they had at least two (possibly three) different ideas for what a sequel should be and just crammed them into one movie. Those plots being passing the love of Blues to the younger generation (e.g. Scribbles, the PG rating) and the idea that you don't necessarily have to be related by blood to be "Blues Brothers." Rather than just focusing on one of those ideas - either of which would have been serviceable - they tried to force them both together, all while trying to fit it within the framework of the original movie. I feel like their really needed a meeting to cut one of those story lines, because as it is, neither gets fully developed and the entire movie suffers for it. Here's what I would have done: First of all, as much as it pains me to say, we'd have to bench Scribbles. Maybe he could come back for Blues Brothers 3000 or whatever, but for now, the important thing is reestablishing the group and making them relevant again. Let's not worry about whether or not kids think Blues music is cool just yet. Honestly, my version starts out basically the same - with Elwood getting out of prison and learning of Jake's passing. From there, he learns of a voodoo priestess who can resurrect the dead, and subsequently discovers that she's holding a Battle of the Bands in which the winner gets to request a single boon. Elwood decides he wants her to bring back Jake, but in order to win, he needs to put the band back together. He does so, but without Jake, they're just not as good. At that point, the movie could play out pretty similarly. He hires Goodman's character while being pursued by Morton. During the course of their movie, and after a number of wacky misadventures and zany hijinks, Elwood and Goodman's character bond. Morton confronts them at the climax of the movie where the power of the Blues overtakes him and he joins them onstage. While their performance is transcendent, they still lose to the Louisiana Gator Boys, but that's okay. We learn that Erykah Badu couldn't have brought back Jake anyway. What she can do, however, is make Elwood aware of the two new brothers he has standing beside him. Elwood comes to terms with his loss and embraces Goodman and Morton as family - learning that it's not blood but the Blues that binds. ...oh, and some cars crash or some shit.

We’ve missed you too!

I'm not a huge fan of the original, but isn't their whole shtick throughout the movie that they never lose their cool? Even when Elwood's apartment blows up they just kind of stoically emerge from the rubble and move on. The only time they break this rule is at the very end when Jake breaks down in front of Carrie Fischer and begs her not to kill them. The reason that scene works is because they've been completely emotionless through all the other madness that’s been swirling around them. And, honestly, more than anything else, I think that's why this movie doesn't work. Ultimately, it's the same movie - same plot, same jokes, same music, same structure. The movie doesn't suffer, as some have argued, because John Belushi isn't in it (Goodman is arguably a better actor and singer). The movie suffers because it doesn't give the audience catharsis. We need to have a chance to mourn for Jake. The problem with that is that's simply not who the Blues Bros are. If the movie indulged in sentimentality, it would have betrayed their spirit and would have been even worse. It simply wouldn't have made sense for Elwood to just break down and cry or something - that's not who that character is. I feel like it’s the juxtaposition between the audience's need to come to terms with their loss, and Elwood's need to remain true to character and ignore that loss, that leaves the viewer feeling unsatisfied.

I haven't listened to the episode yet, either. I watched BB 2000 a couple of weeks ago, and since I don't feel like revisiting it so soon, I'm not sure how much I'll be participating this week. That being said, I'm surprised to hear they were down on the music. I loved seeing the Louisiana Gator Boys! Each one of those musicians is amazing. Not to mention Sam Moore and Wilson Pickett. Hell, Jonny Lang is fantastic. Even the Blues Brothers Band is made up of some terrific musicians. I think the biggest headscratcher for me was how they were going to do a whole episode on this movie since the music is really pretty good. And since the action/plot is just a contrivance to get to the next musical number/cameo, what can you really say about it? I guess I was wrong...

I just spent the last little bit hacking through the web and travelling to alien websites and exotic forums dedicated to Civil War history and this is what I've been able to piece together. Able-bodied men who didn't enlist in the Army during the Civil War were (creatively) called "stay-behinders" and were generally looked down upon. According to one site, these people were treated especially bad in the South because of "manpower shortages, a martial spirit, and invading armies." People who tried to opt out of the war as a conscientious objector "sometimes endured violent persecutions by civilians, brutal punishment by military authorities, and death by firing squad." And as you can probably imagine, after the South lost, it was even worse to be known as a "stay behinder." There was also something (again creatively) called a "Home Guard." Apparently, if you owned more than twenty slaves, you didn't have to enlist in the Confederate Army. Home Guards were a loose militia, partially overseen by the Confederate Army, that stayed behind to protect people's property. However, because there was a war going on, no one paid much attention to them and they were prone to abusing their power. One of the functions of the Home Guard was to pick up deserters and stay-behinders. According to Wikipedia, deserters were then either returned to the Army or executed. Which brings me back to The General. Everyone in town would have to have known why Buster wasn't fighting and why that was important. If not, he'd be getting picked up by the Home Guard all the freaking time and sent off to fight - which is exactly what he would have wanted. So, really, none of it makes sense. You're sloppy, Keaton!

...Totally forgot it was Monday! We watched:

Et tu, Tom?

My boys are about the same age as Paul's kids and I agree that it's difficult to get them to sit down and watch these movies. After all, Paw Patrol is oh, so alluring. Just the other night, my eldest saw I was watching A Place in the Sun and asked me what was wrong with it. "Wrong with what?" I asked. "It's got no color..." I think the important thing to do at this age, rather than force them to sit through them, is just let them see you watching older movies. That way, when they're older and more receptive, they won't think it's such an alien concept.

I bought it on iTunes.

I guess I just have a higher opinion of Mr. Loaf. :)/> I guess I could buy him as cheater if she said “You’ve been around” instead. I wouldn't say she's not into him, though. After all, she asks him if he'll hose her down with Holy Water if she get too hot (HOT!) (btw- I've listened to this song far too much today.)

I guess it makes as much sense as saying, "I swim in all bodies of water, and I swim in lakes." No, the whole song is about him professing his love for someone who has been hurt before and he's trying to convince her to take a chance on him. The song begins with him making this huge overture, by telling her that he would go "to Hell" for her. He then dials it back a bit and says, "Look, I can't promise you it will all be perfect for you, (Somedays it won't come easy...), but I will always love you (as long as the planets are turning)." He then promises to be with her until death do they part (I'll be there to the final act). He then says, as much as he loves her, there will be times she makes him crazy, too (Somedays I pray for Silence). Maybe even up to the point where he feels like bailing on the relationship (And some nights I lose the feeling), but even then he says, as long as they still have passion (as long as the fires are burning), then he's going to stay with her and love her. So at this point in the song, she's been listening to him and she's starting to become receptive to his declarations of love, so she starts to test him (Will you raise me up? Will you help me done? Will you get me right out of this Godforsaken town?) And, for perhaps the first time, he dispenses with the dramatics and just says (I can do that!). She thinks this all sounds great, and she goes through a bunch of fantasy items (Will you take me to places I've never seen? Will you cater to all my fantasies?), and he's like, "Yup." But then cynicism creeps back in. She says, "This all sounds great, but I've heard this all before. Someone told me all of this same crap you're telling me and he ended up cheating on me (It was a brief interlude and a midsummer night's fling) So, like, I've had my heart broken before (I know the territory, I've been around) and I don't want to be hurt again" And, at last he assures her, "Don't worry, I won't do to you what that person did to you (declarative statement: I won't do that. Not "I won't do that again.")." As far as assurances of not doing something that would harm their love for love, I think that's meant to be much more playful than you're giving it credit for. He's just playing with semantics. He's saying that "anything" obviously doesn't mean "everything."

Yes, but the song is structured as a dialogue. We just don’t hear her side of the conversation until the end. The whole thing is him assuring her of his affection. So while your sentences might not work for you, you have to place them in context of their hypothetical conversation where he’s putting restrictions on his undying love. Meatloaf: I would do anything for love. Her: Would you steal? Meatloaf: Yes. Her: Murder? Meatloaf: Yes. Her: Peg. Meatloaf: ...yes. Her: Forget about this moment? Meatloaf: I would do anything for love, but I won’t do that. If you ignore that context, it makes no sense. It’s why the song starts “And I would do anything for love.” Not only is he starting mid conversation, he’s starting in mid sentence. So, no, “and” doesn’t make sense. Or, at least, it would be redundant. For example: “I would do anything for love, *and* I won't fuck someone else better than I fuck you.” “And” doesn’t work because “not fucking someone better” is already covered in “anything.” “But” works because he’s qualifying what “anything” covers. “I know I’m saying I’d do anything for love, BUT there are actually a few things I won’t do.”

Okay, I think we’re going to have to take a deep dive into this. According to the song, the things Meatloaf won’t do for love (and there are a few) is: 1) Forget the way you feel right now 2) Forgive himself if they don’t fuck tonight 3) Never fuck anyone better than the way he fucks you 4) Dream of you every night of his life 5) Cheat on you It’s not actually about cheating. At least, not in his verses. She says that eventually he’ll be “screwing around” and he says assures her that he won’t. It’s not one of his, “I would do anything for love verses,” though.

Kind of off topic, but I it will be a cold day in Hell when I will be able to hear the name "Annabel Lee" and not immediately start thinking: It was many and many a year ago, In a kingdom by the sea, That a maiden there lived whom you may know By the name of ANNABEL LEE; And this maiden she lived with no other thought Than to love and be loved by me. I was a child and she was a child, In this kingdom by the sea; But we loved with a love that was more than love- I and my Annabel Lee; With a love that the winged seraphs of heaven Coveted her and me. And this was the reason that, long ago, In this kingdom by the sea, A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling My beautiful Annabel Lee; So that her highborn kinsman came And bore her away from me, To shut her up in a sepulchre In this kingdom by the sea. The angels, not half so happy in heaven, Went envying her and me- Yes! - that was the reason (as all men know, In this kingdom by the sea) That the wind came out of the cloud by night, Chilling and killing my Annabel Lee. But our love it was stronger by far than the love Of those who were older than we- Of many far wiser than we- And neither the angels in heaven above, Nor the demons down under the sea, Can ever dissever my soul from the soul Of the beautiful Annabel Lee. For the moon never beams without bringing me dreams Of the beautiful Annabel Lee; And the stars never rise but I feel the bright eyes Of the beautiful Annabel Lee; And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side Of my darling- my darling- my life and my bride, In the sepulchre there by the sea, In her tomb by the sounding sea.

I have admit I haven’t seen them, but weren’t Douglas Fairbanks’ movies (e.g. Robin Hood) action movies? Or are those more “Adventure” movies?

Getting back to the cowardice thing, I agree with Amy, Paul, and AlmostAGhost, in that it’s a pretty weak set up. If I were him, I would have just gotten back in line with Annabelle Lee’s father and brother. That way, even if I were kicked out again, at least they’d see it wasn’t my fault and I wasn’t being a coward. I hate to be a backseat director, but if I had done it, I think I would have set the scene up - where instead of just being kicked out - Keaton does something to piss off the people in the enlistment office. I don’t know what, something clumsy or whatever, but something that results in an enlistment officer wanting to beat him up. The payoff would be that when Daddy and Bro Lee see him, he doesn’t just shake his head dejectedly and skulk off, but he’s actually running away. Then you can have the recruitment officer come out, shake a fist, and yell, “Get back here you coward!” It really doesn’t make any sense that he’s not allowed to explain himself.

I have to agree with Tremaine regarding the train. Trains are super dangerous, but never really appears to be moving super fast. So, from a modern perspective, it all appears a bit ho-hum.

Yes, thank you, Amy! (I’m sure my reign as King of the Nerds is secure - lol)

That’s exactly what it was Also...have at you!

I'm sorry.

I mean, I get that. But that’s not quite the point I was making. My point was taking a full, card carrying Nazi and writing a movie where he’s the heroic romantic lead. A movie where at the end he’s like, “Yup, I sincerely still believe in all this garbage.” You’re talking about alternate histories that, however misguided, were most likely not going to make the case that the South/Nazis *should* have won.

I’ve never heard that. But were they trying to say “What if the Confederacy won? Wouldn’t it would have been great?”