Here now before me, thou shalt debate the merits and demerits of the movie The Boondock Saints.
There are no reviews available from rottentomatoes.com, though there are a couple of quotes from reviews on that page. I pretty much agree with the quote from Brent Simon’s review, though I notice he gives literally every movie he reviews a scathingly bad review.
I liked some of the art direction. And (of course) Willem Dafoe was fun to watch. But the script… the ideas… the plot… the lack of plot coherence… I couldn’t stand it. And the staged “man on the street” interviews at the end…? I did not need to be slapped around with the “moral of the story” in this particular way. Very unpleasant.
I tried in my struggle to understand the flick’s appeal to understand it as somehow winking at me the whole time, utilizing cliche’s and glossing over plot silliness on purpose expecting me to think it’s hip and postmodern. Sometimes this works for me. In this case, even if that’s what the movie was going for, it didn’t appeal to me. And I don’t think that’s what the movie was going for.
Yet, apparently, a whole lot of people think this is a really good movie.
Troy Duffy is almost the biggest asshole I have ever seen. He is a bar bouncer again, AFAIK.
That said, I thought the movie was brilliant. Well shot, great lines (Hey fuckass, get me a beer!") and the ever popular “Fuck, ass!” Yes, it is swearing for the sake of swearing, but sometimes that works.
Willem and Billy Connely made this movie more credible. Oh, Ron Jeremy helped too.
Protagonists that get arrested for defending themselves, are well educated (linguistically at least), and seek to destroy evil? How is that not good?
Admitedly I have no really credible “proof” that this movie is good. I loved it, and evry person I’ve reccomended it to loved it.
As for the ending credits “And the staged “man on the street” interviews at the end…? I did not need to be slapped around with the “moral of the story” in this particular way. Very unpleasant.”
I’ve never heard of someone making such a big deal about cheesy ending credits. The movie is over. Does this actually have an affect on the movie’s quality?
What made you think the movie was trying to make you think it was “postmodern”? That’s ridiculous.
One of my friends loves this movie. Loves it so much when he asked me if I’d seen it and I said “no,” he put it on right then and there.
This friend’s roommate is a Christian. He had not seen the movie either, and afterwards, I asked him what he thought. He said it was an okay movie, but what they did (killing people, basically) was pretty un-Christian. I agreed with him, even though I am not a Christian. It just struck me as flawed.
I liked the movie, but I put it into the same category as Armageddon: The more seriously you take it, the less good it is. Taken as just a story, with no ulterior motives or inflated notions of its importance, it’s quite enjoyable.
Could you elaborate? From what I know of Troy Duffy (haven’t met him personally) he seems like a great guy to spend an evening bullshitting and tossing back drinks with.
As for the movie itself, I don’t know how people can’t love it. So much good stuff all the way through. If not for Columbine, this movie could have been a smash hit in theatres.
Troy Duffy himself notes in the director’s commentary that people call his movie derivative of “Pulp Fiction” and the like. He notes that there’s worse company he could be in.
Sadly BDS 2 appears to be stuck somewhere in perpetual pre-production purgatory.
“Shhh… I’m figurin’ some shit out here… Now get a fuckin’ hold of yourself!”
The scene at the poker game alone is strong enough to hang a movie on. When Smecker and the funnyman both drop to their knees to shoot (and pretend to shoot) the guy under the pool table, I just about cream my jeans. Boondock Saints is the movie that made me want to make movies.
It’s a great set of ideas for a movie. Knowing the movie was about this made me hope I was about to see a good movie.
But as we all know, poor execution can ruin a great idea.
I don’t know why you say I was making “a big deal” of this aspect of the movie–it was just one of several criticisms I mentioned. As to whether what happens during the credits can have an effect on the movie’s quality, I would say, sure it can. Like I said, the effect of this sequence felt to me as though I was being slapped around with “the moral of the story.” This makes me think less of a movie whether it happens at the beginning, the middle, the end, or during the credits.
As I said in my post, I don’t think this. I just tried it out as a way to read the movie. The attempt was unsuccessful.
What’s clever or interesing about depicting a guy needing to drop down to get a better angle to shoot someone? Okay… he could have just aimed lower without dropping to his knees. So he was being “stylish?” Or as Dafoe’s character put it, a “cowboy?”
Since part of the ppoint of the movie can be raised as *raising[i/i] the question of the “christianity” (or more generally, the rightness anf justice) of their actions, the ethics of the protagonists doesn’t bother me.
Its just that the questions the movie raises, it raises in such a clunky and ineffective way.
Bu the movie begs and pleads with you to take it seriously. The movie practically dissolves into a giant head facing the audience telling them to take it seriously as presenting important ideas we should all be thinking about.
To just watch it “for the story” is not really to watch the movie on its own terms–its tantamount to admitting that, as it is, the movie is not good to watch.
If I abstract out of the movie something I might think of as “just the plot,” then, yeah, there’s a good idea for a plot there, and there are several individualy well-and-interestingly crafted scenes.
But even when I’m just thinking about the plot, I find inconsistencies (or at least, difficulties) and brazenly ridiculous cliches.
Plot Difficulty Example: The two are apparently already being thought of as heros or saints after they kill the two russian guys. I can think of a few ways this might have happened–and I also think its possible the lines of dialogue I’m referring to were meant originally for a later portion of the movie when the idea of the two as saints had already been well established. But as it is, I just have to guess how it is they’ve acquired this reputation. An extra ten or fifteen second scene would have done it–show the people from the bar scene telling the story of what happened, getting the details wrong, misconstruing the Irish pairs’ motives, etc. This would explain it.
Brazen Cliche Example: spoiler:"Boss, we’re forgetting something. The old guy was hired to kill, and he won’t stop til he kills somebody. So we’d better watch out–it follows that he’s likely to kill us, the guys who hired him".[/spoiler]
That’s… just… stupid. And an important plot point. Which makes much of the plot stupid.
The beauty was in that Smecker, the FBI agent, is there explaining how the crime happened, at the same time that the crime is taking place. The coolness came from the filmmaker’s choice to actually shoot Smecker IN the scene that he is describing. The point is that Smecker is so good that he can actually SEE, in his mind’s eye, the crime taking place as though he’s right there.
There is a progression in the film. The first murder, Smecker describes what happened, and then the murder is shown in the next scene. The second murder, Smecker’s description scene is somewhat intercut with the scene of the murder. The third murder is completely intercut with Smecker’s description. It’s the fourth murder where the filmmaker takes it to a whole new level and actually puts Smecker in the scene.
I don’t know, but it was the first time I had seen it. Something like that would just come off as pretentious or cute if not done well. In this case, it worked because it was so effective in showing (not telling) Smecker’s character…how he absorbed the details of the case and eventually put himself into the crime scenes. Far more effective than just having another character say something like, “Wow, that Smecker’s really good at his job.”
