h1

“Boondock Saints 2” to Suck Harder than “Boondock Saints”

July 22, 2008

Before anyone sends out the fanmob to come after me about how “inspiring” and “amazing” and “totally unique” the original “Boondock Saints” is, let me remind you of the basic plot:

Two Irish brothers go on a killing spree after their favorite bar gets closed down on St. Patrick’s Day.  They claim they’re doing it because god spoke to them, and being good Irish Catholics, they feel the need to do as god insists.

“Inspring”, you say?  “Amazing”, you say?  “Totally unique”, you say?  “Complete idiocy that someone got passed off as decent cinema”, I say.

“Boondock Saints” is the type of movie that is revered by the people who claim to watch “films” and not “movies”.  These are the same people who list amongst their top ten the following films:

Pulp Fiction
Goodfellas
Donnie Darko
Momento
Requiem for a Dream
[Insert Kevin Smith movie]

That’s not to say that these individual films are bad.  The list above is actually a very strong example of modern movie-making, covering a few different genres and styles of filmmaking.  So how did “Boondock Saints” get tied in with them?  It’s a cheap action flick that brings nothing of cinematic interest to the table.  Killings for religious reasons has been done.  Slow motion action scenes to hard guitar rock and roll has been done.  Vigilantism has been done.  In fact, all of these things have been done better.  Just because they wrap their rosaries around their wrists and recite a prayer before blowing out the back of someone’s head does not make them edgier, sexier, or more interesting than any other B-level action movie. 

Which makes the absolute explosion of love and devotion to this film even more puzzling.  People learn the prayer by heart, buy anything with “Boondock Saints” emblazoned across the front of it, and inform other people, who look at the film and go, “eh”, that we just, “Don’t get it, and really need to learn to understand film.”*  There’s a slavish following to this film that has now spawned Troy Duffy announcing his plans for the sequel.  And he just released the plot.

Train, meet wreck.

Rather than cut and paste the entire ridiculous synopsis, let me list for you all the obscenely moronic plot points by use of quotes:

  • Dad has to stay back because something is wrong with him, and you can tell he doesn’t have much time left.

One of the top ten rules of bad sequels:  Set it up early that someone will die.

  • And one of the guys they meet along the way is a Hispanic American named Romeo. And Romeo ends up becoming like the third brother or saint, fourth I guess if you’re gonna consider Billy. He’s a lot more of a bad ass than Rocco was. But his comedy is that he wants to be a lot more a part of this. So there is a lot of humor that comes from that.

Okay, first of all, “Romeo” is an Italian name, and given how Duffy feels it’s important to note that Romeo is Hispanic, I’m counting this as a point against.  Apparently, if he’s not stereotyping the Irish, Duffy has some issues keeping his stereotypes straight.  Romeo should really be named Jose or Jesus or Juan.  Second of all, if “Boondock Saints 2” is trying to follow in the supposed-plot footsteps of the original, why are there plans for comedic scenes?  Where within the context of defending their serial killer honor are the jokes?  A few witty lines could be used well to lighten the mood in very tense scenes, but the way Duffy writes it, it sounds like it may get borderline slapstick.

  • Romeo has a connection to the Hispanic underground in Boston

Of course he does.  I mean, obviously, all these Hispanic people know one another. 

  • because Williem is not going to be in the second one

This is actually one piece of news that makes me happy.  I love Willem Dafoe, and I’m thrilled to discover that he’s going nowhere near this monumental train wreck.  His monologues in the first film were only as good as they were because he was the one delivering them.  It takes a great deal of talent to rise above the dreck of someone like Duffy, and Dafoe managed it, just barely.

  • she is named Unis Bloom, she is a George peach. She’s got that doc holiday accent, super super sexy. So she’s the one going after the saints and now working with these three officers.

A female cop, Duffy?  And you made her sexy?  And southern?  How very…completely bad sitcom of you.  Tell me, did she become a cop because her daddy was a small-town sheriff and raised her like a boy?

  • There is no love interest by the way. A lot of people hear there is going to be a female lead in Boondock and think there is going to be some kind of love interest… don’t worry about that… That’s not happening.

Oh, Troy, you disappoint.  You were thisclose to putting together a completely contrived, stereotypical film.  So close, sir.  So very, very close.  In all seriousness, this may be the only thing Duffy is attempting to do right.  The loss of Willem Dafoe was, I’m sure, out of his hands, so knowing that Duffy is actually aware of the idiocy of throwing in a love interest is slightly salving.

  • Billy’s character Il Duce is the third act. He blasts the story wide open. And because we’re keeping him in Ireland, he gets to do the same thing here. He comes back in the third act.

The sudden reveal of Billy Connelly in the first “Boondock Saints” added absolutely nothing to the film.  He was simply there, almost magically, and the audience was supposed to understand that he was the father to the brothers.  Whoop-de-freakin’-do, folks.  Using the same ridiculous device smacks of complete lack of real ending.  Way to go, Duffy; you’ve just managed to lose all points for the lack of a love interest.

Also?  Nice spoiler alert before this gem:

  • The brothers, everything you think is going on, isn’t going on. Here’s the guy that did this. And it ends up being an old guy who has a connection to Billy. And you sort of figure out where this has all been going. And we go into a period flashback and we explain how Il Duce got to be Il Duce.” … “all the way to the point where he makes the first version of that leather vest.”

I know that what I salivated for at the end of the first “Boondock Saints” was to know where that kicky vest came from. 

Let me shake off the snark and be serious:  This movie will be a steaming pile of crap in a hat.  There is nothing here that is remotely deep, interesting, or driven by more than Duffy’s own ego demanding attention again.  This is a straight-to-DVD kind of horrid.  There is not one moment within Duffy’s own synopsis that he takes the time to explain a character.  All he has are cardboard cut outs with names.  His action will have guys with guns, most likely running in slow motion.  He will convince a new legion of young moviegoers that his film has some deep, impactful meaning when it is, in fact, no higher on the meaningful thoughts food chain than an impacted bowel.

 

 

 

*This is a true quote.

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. I still have no desire to even watch the first movie.


  2. wow.. always listen to a person who makes their judgements based of an incorrect synopsis of the sequal script, doesn’t even understand the plot or the roles of the major characters in the first film, or even the directors name. The steaming pile of crap in a hat should belong simply to this future seeing review that reflects more on the writers hate of the fans of the film that the film itself.


    • The script synopsis was given by Troy Duffy in an interview. As he is the man in charge of the sequel, I would assume him to be the authority on the film.

      And let’s be very clear: we don’t like the film. The fans are who they are, and even without them, we still wouldn’t like the film. It is, at best, a mediocre action flick. The script is shoddy, the characters are, on a good day, incredibly flimsy cardboard cut-outs, and the ending is a weak attempt to justify a two-hour blood bath. If this film were worth praising, the blood bath would have been justified because the film would have been good.

      I’ll happily grant you that I got Duffy’s first name wrong. It’s been corrected, and thanks for dropping a comment.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: