Ganny McVagflaps Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Plus, your post here is the first bad thing i've heard about Boondock Saints Really? Cause it wasn't that hard to find any more bad things about it.... The Boondock Saints went, for all intents and purposes, straight to video. The film plays out like the last vestiges of the misinterpretation of Tarantino cool, especially in its flip violence and an FBI agent character whose queerness is there to authorize casual homophobia, though the great Willem Dafoe brings his usual verve to the role. Worse, Duffy suggests some splice of Tarantino and another key influence on Sundance-era filmmakers, Edward Burns: The Boondock Saints is like a head-on collision between Pulp Fiction and The Brothers McMullen, making the film the perfect all-purpose bookend for the independent cinema of the nineteen-nineties. Said Irish brothers (Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flannery, both charismatic, admittedly) consume copious amounts of wince-inducing liquor, go to mass, and seem to have a policy against changing a shirt once it's been bled upon (perhaps a by-product of their slaughterhouse job), but they're not fleshed-out beyond their essential protagonistic function. At some point the pair adopts a third, more manic saint, Rocco (the same-named David Della Rocco), but he gives the movie a sour, misogynistic charge that does it harm rather than good. The Boondock Saints, sorry to say, wasn't worth the trouble. 1/5 A ridiculous (and ridiculously self-important) amalgamation of rehashed macho posturing and slow-motion, faux-balletic bloodletting, The Boondock Saints features such copious use of the word "fuck" that it merits a slot in the single-scene use pantheon alongside Scarface and Blue Velvet, films that I feel I must now draft a formal letter of apology to for even mentioning in this review. The wreakers of all this havoc are a set of Irish fraternal twins, Murphy and Connor, who take Boston by storm when they decide they've been tapped to rid the world of all that is "truly evil," which in this case means lots of Russian mobsters and thick-necked goombas who all look like they should be guesting as Thug #4 on V.I.P. Duffy obviously thinks his two "saint" brothers - played by Sean Patrick Flanery (The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Body Shots) and Norman Reedus (Six Ways to Sunday) - are the shit, but short of costuming them in black and giving them rascally, weathered brogues that come and go, there is precious little to go by. Who are these guys? Why do they take up the serial murder of Sopranos rejects? What informs their mission? These are answers to which only Troy Duffy and his maker are privy. I do not doubt that characters like this exist in real life, street-hardened squatters wielding rel igion like their own private pocketknives. But the lack of thought and explanation put into the story is egregious. To say that the film deteriorates into nonsensical weapon unloadings and failed stabs at Tarantino-style levity would be to give the mistaken impression that The Boondock Saints at any point transcends these aspects of its plot. It moves unfailingly toward its conclusion, let's say that. A conclusion that is supposed to be climactic. A conclusion that is not. A conclusion that is quite obviously supposed to mean something, to be fraught with cage-rattling socio-political significance. A conclusion that does not and is not. Rather, that final 20 minutes includes one of the scarier captured images of the infant millennium - a slow-motion shot (naturally) of Willem Dafoe in drag that resembles the angry, de-wigged, third runner-up in a Lucille Ball look-alike contest busting out with a snort - nay, a whiny - of deranged revenge. It says everything about the movie that at that moment, approaching the film's emotional off ramp, chief among my thoughts was the desire for a split screen, instant pop-up comparison of its Searing Bad Movie Image companion, the disturbing shot in Speed 2: Cruise Control where Dafoe simultaneously does impressions of a giddy lower primate and a shrieking middle school girl. The story of The Boondock Saints, while weakly imagined and full of trite exchanges, has at its core the undeniably commercial premise of a pleasantly anarchic '80s action film, crossed with (arguably) charismatic '90s anti-heroes. This is obviously what got the screenplay noticed. Too bad, then, that Duffy has, directorially, neither the clarity of vision nor the required passion to stamp a personality on the film. And technical savvy? Forget about it. There are all kinds of coverage issues and small editing problems that distract from the atrocity unfolding on screen. If it weren't for the nominally recognizable faces, you'd swear that the film was the work of some hack French producer skilled at crafting two-week, cheap-o knock-offs of "American entertainment" (Heroes storm warehouse/penthouse. Repeat.) for product-starved foreign markets. Do yourself a favor and do not attend a convocation with these Saints. Despite an interesting premise and some great characters, the film drags, with an awkward transition from the two brothers to an Italian crime boss and his family. An horrific scene in which a third so-called angel – an Italian lowlife who is sick of the mob so has joined the brothers – accidentally shoots a cat, is not funny nor particularly warranted and it is at this moment that you may realize that the director has done nothing original, but rather is copying old Tarantino and Martin Scorsese scenes while adding an unwelcome dose of senseless gratuitous violence. The cat-killing scene is a cop out and ruins what might have been a fairly interesting and warped take on the Scorsese/Tarantino style. Instead, Duffy proves that he does not have enough to make a two-hour movie so must throw in a few useless scenes to get to his allotted time. This is a pity because shaving ten minutes off the film would not have made much difference. Duffy strikes me as Tarantino-lite himself. He will be treated like Alan Rudolph, who can best be described as Robert Altman-lite. Duffy will be thrown some work, some actors will want to work with him but he is a student of a particular film style and is by no means an auteur or groundbreaking iconoclast like his obvious film role models. The movie’s ending leaves a lot to be desired, and like many a film before it, uses the let’s-end-with-a-television-crew-asking-people-what-they-think. This seems entirely out of place. Duffy has made a film that sort of straddles the fine line between great movie and useless piece of garbage and one can see that with a few changes it could have been as good as Reservoir Dogs. On the other hand, if a few more cat killings had been included, it would have degenerated into a stupid vigilante flick like Death Wish V. Less a proper action-thriller than a series of gratuitously violent setpieces strung together with only the sketchiest semblance of a plot, The Boondock Saints is clearly designed to appeal to heartless armchair sadists. As written and directed by newcomer Troy Duffy, The Boondock Saints is all style and no substance, a film so gleeful in its endorsement of vigilante justice that it almost veers (or ascends) into self-parody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I'll put in my two cents in defense of The Boondock Saints when I get the chance, but until then, this is for 2T. I don't want Ritchie to "grow." I don't care if he returns to the kind of material that worked for him the first time around. I just want him to get organized, to find the through line, to figure out why we would want to see the movie for more than its technique. I can't recommend "Snatch". -Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times Ritchie (who is also Madonna's new husband) has not mastered the long narrative. In "Snatch," it's doubtful he even tried. He might get away with it this time -- audiences may confuse clutter for cleverness. But energy alone can't drive a film when it's loaded down with too many characters and locations. Nor does it help to have a narrator come on every few minutes to explain everything in voice-over. "Snatch" is a mess. -Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle Snatch is a particularly wearying example of a recent wave of British gangster films, most of which are so pointless that they've made it difficult for such genre gems as Mike Hodges's Croupier and Jonathan Glazer's Sexy Beast (due to open in the States in late spring) to get the audiences they deserve. Sexy Beast has everything Snatch lacks: two complicated central characters brilliantly played by Ray Winstone and Ben Kingsley, a strikingly sensuous visual style, a fab score, and a wonderfully sustained and original heist sequence. Take a pass on Snatch and wait for the real deal. -Amy Taubin, The Village Voice (This is) showoff filmmaking that blatantly ignores the needs of story and character in favor of whatever happens to look 'cool.' The kind of trend-happy picture that will look dated six months from now. -Sean Burns, Philadelphia Weekly Snatch is loathsome in an unusually cheeky way. It's as if someone decided that black comedy needed to be put to death, using an electric saw that laughs. -David Elliot, San Diego-Union Tribune Since when do critics know good movies? You can find something bad about any movie. I mean, look what Matinee Magazine said about Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg trades in his usually powerful ideals for an unsettling combination of phony humanism and pandering realism. You of all people don't seem like the type to run to the critics to confirm your taste in movies, 2T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 Well, I meant it was the first bad thing I heard from a person, not from a critic. You find many reviews to bash any film you want, no matter how good it is. And the Boondock Saints was not made for video release. It was made for theatrical release, and right before promotion was about to begin for it, the Columbine Shooting happened, and the studio pussied out and sold it to a video distirubtor. The same shit almost happened to Phone Booth because of the Maryland Spiner, but the had already started the promotion campaign for that. It's also noteworthy that because of Boondock Saints being pulled, the first really violent movie to be release after Columbine was Fight Club, which only grossed $40M, $20M less than the budget for the movie. So Bill Chambers' comment "The Boondock Saints went, for all intents and purposes, straight to video" is not relavant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Spiffy, you draw weird comparisons, man, Snach & Lock Stock were caper movies, whose main goal was comedy. Natural Born Killers...that was weak, but that's a seperate thread. I personally thought, over-the-top odd comedy & all that included, this was a vigilante movie, a lot more akin to Taxi Driver (and no, im not comparin it to that one, either). Some even saw it as a superhero flick; these guys seemed immortal sometimes. The crazy (and kinda silly, maybe) scenes of dropping toilets, swinging through hotel rooms & shooting, the whole bit. And the courtroom scene with Ill Duce really set the next one up to be cool. Of course it coulda been tighter, but the director, as i read, was just a fan with little experiene (could be wrong here?) who set out to do some Punisher-type anti-heroes that he thought his block could use. The religous overtones were cool - one of the cool bits of catholic history involves that latin tattooing on the hands, a la the crusades, like christ-blessed killings, if you will - but they couldve played that up a bit, too. I'm told the uncut version (japanese and one other one) has an exteneded scene in the jail cells early on, were its more heavily implied that the brothers are "baptized" and given their mission. I guess the Irish accents were weak, but ive heard worse. I dunno what you were expectin, man, but i had a blast with this flick, and really cant wait to see the sequel, thought I hope they get a bigger budget, and a cross-dressing Defoe again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted September 30, 2003 Author Share Posted September 30, 2003 The director/writer was a Boston bartender who loved action movies and wrote a script that he actually sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Right, The Boondock Saints is writer/director Troy Duffy's first and only movie ('til the sequel eventually comes out). Dunno, I'd say it's pretty good for a first-timer with no experience in the biz. You're right about the cuts, IC. Aside from quite a bit've violence that was cut out (bloody bullet hits an' all...nothing we haven't seen), the scene in the jail was reduced down a bit. In the script it was actually a vision/dream sequence, that would've made their "mission from God" a lot clearer (there was also another vision sequence in the hotel room at the end) but they never finished filming it for budget reasons. The sequel is supposed to be getting a (slightly, at least) bigger budget, but sadly, Dafoe backed out of it. Since Spidey he seems to be moving on to bigger things. The script was rewritten around his character, but thankfully the brothers and Il Duce are all returning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I just really wanted to know if it was just me who didn't like the flick (and it looks like I was...). There were many things that got up my ass, and I don't wanna sound like a broken record, so I won't. I'd also like Jax for acknowledging that the only flicks I like are ones that start with "Bill and Ted's...". Seriously though - I have butted heads over my dislike of certain flicks before, but with the ones that I have "Fight Club" or "The Matrix" for example, I could see why people'd like 'em. They just weren't for me. As for "Boondock Saints", I was so shocked at how poor it was (in my opinion - disclaimer so Jax won't spring from the darkness with yet another verbal attack ) and that I couldn't see anything that would make so many people dig it I wanted to bring it up and see if I was alone. I would waffle on about why I don't dig it more, but no use wasting time...I have no doubt that any retort will fall upon deaf ears.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Not entirely...i was curious about some more of the specifics of what ya didnt dig. Certainly, the Tarentino "its backwards for a few minutes" wasnt exectuted as well as it mighta been on paper, and dialogue wasnt necessarily a strength either with some supporting cast. Again, i thought the charm was this Irish vigilante Punisher-esque thing. You agreed that the theme could be interestin (i think), so what in particular lost ya? I mean, ill be honest, i was the fanboy in The Hulk who thought "Puny Human" was kinda fun...then again, i was diggin the movie, but the comic effect threw me off sometimes, and what the fuck happend to Nolte at the...anyway, the fact that you can say a movie's alright but not for you is more than most, that's how i feel bout Chicago & other musicals i havent given a fair chance cause im not big on musicals as a genre: at least you watched Boondock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Okay..in points..I guess I'll be repeating myself, so here's the last time I make these points, and hopefully this'll be more structured... i) I thought the acting was pretty woeful. From the Bartender with Tourettes to the coppers to Ron "Mayor of Tromaville" Jeremy to the Funny Man (or whatever his name was - sorry, it's not coming to me) they were all shite. Flannery and Reedus were alright (I'll get to my beef with them later). I will admit that Dafoe was fun, it was nice to see him ham it up but at times I felt it was a bit over kill, and also I thought Billy Connoly was good (his few lines anyway). Every other bit part fuck was atrocious. ii) Reedus and Flannery's accents really got up my ass. Maybe it's 'cause I'm Irish and I noticed it where the averge american viewer wouldn't, but from the second they opened their mouths I was really put off by how lame they were. It was pretty hard for me to get around that, very, as I said before "Devil's Own"-ish, then again Brad Pitt more than made amends for that crappy accent with "Snatch". The whole "pikey" thing was great. I've known "pikeys" before and he really got it spot on. Maybe if Reedus and Flannery improve in 2 that'll make the flick better for me at least. iii) The dialoge was pretty shite in alot of places. Did Duffy get George Lucas to doctor the script... iv) Troy Duff ain't no Tarantino.... Yeah, I thought it coulda been a good movie, I won't doubt that, but it'd have to be with a re-write and a better cast. As it was I saw nothing of note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffytee Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 okok... i'm not trying to make weird comparisons (too much.) signal was saying something about how it was like lock stock and snatch. i said i didn't see lock stock and that snatch and this one aren't even close. about NBK, i was kinda drawing out that this movie didn't bring anything new to the table... however... 2track, you're not alone. I didn't think it was all the hype. what this movie did bring, something that hadn't been done in awhile. license to kill, from god. and not in a joan of arc way. i really don't think it mixes well. may it be from my religious upbringing or some other strange reason... they didn't really develop these guys too much religiously and they seemed to be hasty in their decision to kill. their main plot conflict was with the cops and gettin around the mess of that guy i hate; not a personal conflict. seemed mindless; i wish there was more development on the main guys. is it just me also, the ending was kinda cheezy in the court? again, that one guy was really a pain. sure he was funny at times, but he was really, really annoying otherwise. oh, IC, go watch chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 All valid points. Now allow me to retort, if I may. No verbal assaults, promise. I thought the acting was pretty woeful. From the Bartender with Tourettes to the coppers to Ron "Mayor of Tromaville" Jeremy to the Funny Man (or whatever his name was - sorry, it's not coming to me) they were all shite. Flannery and Reedus were alright (I'll get to my beef with them later). I will admit that Dafoe was fun, it was nice to see him ham it up but at times I felt it was a bit over kill, and also I thought Billy Connoly was good (his few lines anyway). Every other bit part fuck was atrocious. Y'know, you're absolutely right, there. But it's hard to hold that against a movie with as small a budget as they had. Aside from the top four in the cast, most were not professional actors, they were friends of the director (like the Funnyman, Rocco, for instance), and when they were professionals they were people who made a living doing commercials, or playing "cop number 3" on bad tv shows. That's not something that could really be helped. And as for the top four - I agree that Dafoe was great (when is he not?). It's nice to see a really good actor go over the top sometimes. And you have to admit that his hammy acting made this movie a lot more watchable than his hammy acting in, say, Speed 2. Billy Connolly was limited, but as usual, he was also pretty good. And as for Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus, bad accents aside, would you not agree that they at least gave pretty good performances? Reedus and Flannery's accents really got up my ass. Maybe it's 'cause I'm Irish and I noticed it where the averge american viewer wouldn't, but from the second they opened their mouths I was really put off by how lame they were. Yeah, you're right, they're not the best Irish accents I've heard. At least Connolly had a bit've a headstart, being from Scotland. You could probably justify it, though, if you wanted to, by saying that they have been living in Boston for quite a few years, so their accents would have gotten pretty corrupted. The dialoge was pretty shite in alot of places. Did Duffy get George Lucas to doctor the script... It was. But then in some places, I thought it was pretty good. In what other movie can you hear Willem Dafoe say "Cuddle? What a fag"? Troy Duff ain't no Tarantino.... Few are. Duffy did a lot better than most first-time directors, though, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiffytee Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 first time director does count for something though. tarintino did have his moments... cough* jackie brown *cough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted October 2, 2003 Author Share Posted October 2, 2003 The only reason you (Tim) didn't like it was because you look exactly like the guy who wanted to cuddle with Dafoe after they fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 ...zing! Someone beat me to the punch. And cmon Spiffy, Jackie Brown wasnt Pulp Fiction but it wasnt that bad man. Shame, i know it was over the top but i rather enjoyed the ending. Then again, the same way Spiffy's upbrining mightve turned him against this thing, as a born & raised irish catholic, i thought those elements were cool as fuck, thought I do agree with him that i wish they themsevles'd been fleshed out more. Im seriously lookin forward to part 2 m'self, tho if it maintained the same level of dialogue & such, id agree with 2T that id really like to see a better director run with the idea & the characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 I thought Jackie Brown was class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JunkerSeed Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Yeah, I don't see what was wrong with Jackie Brown either, I mean, it didn't a huge hit like Pulp and Resevoir dogs but it wasn't as ambitious as those either. I thought it was really clever stuff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted May 7, 2006 Share Posted May 7, 2006 May 23, 2006 $17 at Amazon The Boondock Saints barely got released in theaters, but it's become a cult phenomenon--enough of one to warrant a Special Edition in a fancy metal case. The extras will certainly appeal to hardcore fans, particularly the lengthy deleted scene of Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus naked as they talk to their mother on the phone--a scene that only compounds the movie's schizoid homoeroticism. In addition to a number of shorter deleted scenes, there are a handful of goofy outtakes, the original trailer, filmographies, the complete screenplay, and--most interesting of all--two audio commentaries: A surprisingly down-to-earth and self-effacing one by writer-director Troy Duffy, which makes for a much more interesting listen than the pompous self-congratulation all too common to such commentaries; and one by revered comedian Billy Connolly, who plays hitman Il Duce in the movie. Connolly's musings range widely, taking in not only the making of the movie but also his own life and entertaining philosophical notions. All in all, a modest selection of features, but what's there is worthwhile. --Bret Fetzer the bad news: Boondock II was lifted from IMDB, so that dont look good. If youre wondering why, im told Overnight explains it all as well as any - anyone seen it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Overnight was really class. Troy Duffy is such a fucking cock. And Marky Mark is it in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drifter Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 I liked the movie. Old school shoot'em up. Lovable over-acting. Snappy quips and one liners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genroh Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Sweet flick. Best Action moment: Shoot out with The Duke Funniest moment: Roco shoots the cat Saddest moment: Roco's death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.