The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 187 reviews in total 

185 out of 291 people found the following review useful:

What a waste...

Author: headfulofghosts126 from Chicago
18 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me clarify something right off the bat... I am not a fanboy who rated this thing a 10 and down votes every negative review here. But I'm also not a hater. I enjoyed parts of the original movie when it came out. Sure it gets a little sillier with each subsequent viewing and there's nothing terribly original about it but it had an infectious style and a solid cast.

To be blunt, I can't even believe this sequel is for real. And I'm shocked how many fans of the first film say they enjoy it. For me this was a complete misfire every step of the way. The plot is ludicrous. Not because it's too complicated but because it just defies logic. It is not a compelling story on any level. It's an excuse to get the boys back in their pea coats and shooting guns in slow motion. There isn't a single plot point that's credible or followed through on. The movie keeps changing what it's really about. It doesn't feel like layers in a mystery are being pulled back. It feels like Duffy had no idea what this was really about and just kept letting the script wander. Characters are introduced halfway through with no real purpose or development.

The acting just flat out sucks. And I like a lot of these actors. Aside from Billy Connolly and Peter Fonda no one understands how to be subtle. They all crank it to eleven and turn themselves into cartoons, not characters. I thought the first one did a much better job of balancing the humor, action, and drama. Duffy appears clueless on how to accomplish that this time out. The bad guys aren't remotely threatening and even the returning detectives are made to look like buffoons at every turn.

The action scenes in the first film contain a lot of creative ideas that aren't shot as well as they could have been. They're not terrible, but not mind blowing. This one is just embarrassing. Every action beat consists of slow motion, techno music, and the brothers standing in plain view and not getting hit once (until the end when the script requires them to).

It also just feels smaller and cheaper than the original. The settings in the first one seemed real and dirty. We got a sense of the blue collar life in Boston. This one feels like it was shot on sitcom sets. And with hardly any extras it feels like our main characters and villains are the only people in the city.

I know you're all going to bury this review because you don't agree but there wasn't a single thing I found redeeming about this movie. Bad script, bad acting, bad directing, bad music, bad editing... it's just bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

84 out of 135 people found the following review useful:

Not quite what I had hoped for after 10 years, but good none the less

Author: cadillac20 from Culver City, California
1 November 2009

For those of us who have been cult fans of the original, the last ten years have been a long ten. It was only a short while after the first film that they announced a sequel, but that sequel never came about. Then, finally, after all this time, here we are with All Saints Day, and it's a film that should entertain most, if not all fans. Unfortunately, it isn't quite the sequel I had hoped for.

Saints II picks up with the Saints having moved to Ireland after their vigilante spree throughout Boston. When a priest is killed in Boston, the Saints return to find the killer and take out everyone involved. The story soon opens up into a deeper plot about past sins coming back to haunt their characters.

All Saints Day continues the duologue slick, trigger happy style of the first film with rapid fire gun play, film homages, and snapfire duologue that is throughly entertaining. The gun play here is even more stylized, and it makes for some very entertaining action packed scenes that should please everyone who loved the first film. Most of the old cast has returned, and then there is the new cast, who bring some entertaining acting chops with them, mostly in the form of comic relief. Suffice to say, everything you liked about the first one is here, so if you were a fan of that film, you'll most likely love the sequel.

Unfortunately, All Saints Day isn't quite up to par with that first film. Where the first film had a natural flow to it, the sequel is somewhat disjointed, and the cast seems to try too hard. While everyone is real cool and funny, a lot of it seems to be too over the top, and after a while it begins to work against the film. Julie Benz and Clifton Collins Jr. try to make up for their first films counterparts, that being Wilem Defoe and David Della Rocco respectively, but are poor substitutes. Where these characters from the first one seemed to be very natural and perfect in their element, the new cast members seem to be trying to make up for a lack of said characters, and it shows. There are also several silly and useless scenes that, while creative, are out of place and could have very well been left out of the film. In particular is a dream sequence with a character from the first film and a scene with Julie Benz character as a cowgirl.

Fortunately, the end of the film is save by a fantastic climax headed by Billy Connely and Peter Fonda. Their scene at the end is some of the best written stuff of either of the films and these veteran actors bring all their chops to this film. Adding to this is a very pleasant bit part from a Boondock Saints favorite that should leave fans smiling as they leave the theater.

Saints II is a film for the fans, that's for sure. It may even encourage some to go see the first if they haven't seen it already, though this isn't all that likely. But, this is a very entertaining and decently written film that continues this great vigilante tale and may even lead to more. As fans, we can only hope to see more of the Saints in the future.

Was the above review useful to you?

113 out of 195 people found the following review useful:

Creators couldn't make up their minds

Author: Primo84 from United States
13 November 2009

Being a huge fan of the first film, it's kind of difficult to admit this, but The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day just fell short.

The major flaw with the original was that it was a Tarantino-esquire action spoof that was attempting to be serious. Complete with over the top shootout scenes, campy dialog, and insanely unrealistic situations, whether the creators knew it or not, the original Boondock Saints was never meant to be taken seriously. It was just a fun movie.

Anyway, about 15 minutes into this film, it seems as though Troy Duffy had realized this and decided to embrace what the first film should have always been: an entertaining, over-the-top, shoot 'em up flick.

Enter Julie Benz and the three detectives.

See, what made the three detectives from the first Saints funny was not the dimwitted, slapstick gimmick they had in this film, it was Willem Dafoe. It wasn't that they were THAT dumb, it was that Smecker was THAT good. The weird guy was better than the average joes could have ever dreamed to be, and laughs ensued.

In Boondocks 2, you have three actors who are trying way too damn hard to be funny, followed by Julie Benz trying to play a female Paul Smecker. These characters worked in the first film because they actually had a decent performance to play off of.

Don't get me wrong, Julie Benz is great on Dexter, but she was just god awful in this movie. They might as well have tried to pass off that Smecker had a sex change, and that he and Bloom were the same person. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but in this case, it was probably an insult. Also, the Southern Accent was just atrocious.

Aside from that, this film seemed to have expanded on what the original should have always been. There was more laughs, more action, and more blatantly forced accents. Hell, even the obvious replacement for Rocco wasn't half bad.

Dump every scene with Bloom, Greenly, Duffy, and Dolly, and you have yourself a sequel that nearly matches the original.

However, they were still in the movie, and they ruined it every time they were on screen.


Was the above review useful to you?

60 out of 96 people found the following review useful:

Major disappointment : (

Author: priest_of_zeus from United States
18 November 2009

Being a fan of the Saints for years I went into this movie with high expectations and a good amount of personal excitement. Unfortunately, this movie fell way below the standards set by the first installment, for these reasons:

.paper thin plot = very generic, the kind of thing you come up with in five minutes of stereotypical mob brainstorming.

.Dumbed down = Where the first movie succeeded in being witty and fun the second can only survive off of gay jokes and three stooges antics.

.Copying = It seemed like every single well known moment in the first movie was copy and pasted into this movie with the exact same outcome every time. Like they couldn't of anything else to do with them but what they already did.

.Dependent = This movie depended Way too heavily on the first being the underground classic it was. It just tries so hard to be the same bad-ass movie that all the shootout scenes are in slomo and last 25-30 min apiece.

Troy Duffy had his chance to make a movie again and in my opinion all he did was plagiarize himself. Though at times it was funny, the few and far between moments were not enough to save what should have been a continuation of a vigilante cult classic that survived despite the odds. What we get instead is Troy Duffy's homage to himself and a movie that never should have been made.

Was the above review useful to you?

122 out of 228 people found the following review useful:

It's like a cartoon version of something that was once good.

Author: JJ Brent ( from United States
11 February 2010

WOW! I absolutely loved the original. This one is so bad, I almost hate the first movie. Seriously awful. It's full of terrible acting performances from actors who put in a good turn first time around. I hate when a character knows what's quirky about themselves. I can't believe in them when everyone appears as though they know they're in a movie and are IN on the joke. They're not supposed to be, only the audience is. The movie is filled with forced references to what came off in the first film as spontaneous but simply now fall flat. Reedus and Flanery are slumming here. Also slumming is Julie Benz who is basically playing Kyra Sedgwick as The Closer (2005 TV Series). I understand the draw to be in this film, knowing the cult following of the original but this was a big mistake for everyone involved from top to bottom. I don't want to blame the actors totally, there's hardly a good performance to be seen, but with what they had to work with, good lord.

I wanted to love this so bad. I even lowered my expectations in order to have a buffer to allow me to think it was better than expected. Impossible. Boondock Saints one was lightning in a bottle. Perhaps even a fluke. Sure, I saw "Overnight" and bore witness to the train wreck that was Troy Duffy but I always felt saddened by the fact that the original movie showed that he actually had talent and that his demise meant never seeing what he could do if given all of the right ingredients to make more films. If they are anything like this one, I would say that BS1 was indeed a fluke not to be repeated. Furthermore, it makes me wonder if he actually directed BS1.

Unless your character's are Ferris Bueller, they shouldn't be so self aware. It takes them and your audience out of the movie. We need to discover the path WITH our heroes, not have it all drawn out like Wyle E. Coyote's moronic designs. Repeatedly in this film a character will say something and, as the audience member you think, "I knew he was going to say that. And I wish he hadn't"

By the way, I sure wish Judd Nelson would could land some major films. Given the right script and director, we could get some great performances out of him. Right when he seemed to be channeling Pacino, he was derailed with asinine dialog injected to sound witty , profound or even just profane but landed like a thud. I hearken back to Saints 1 where Carlo Rota as Yakavetta is yelling at someone on the phone as he gets his sandwich. That exchange is confusing and out of contexts but feels so real. It was either his brilliant acting or a combination of that, script and direction. That movie was filled with that brilliance. BSII had NONE of it. I'd say the best part of this movie is the tease we get of Rocco and his voice over at the opening of the film. The rest goes downhill so fast it's almost a free fall.

I will forever try to forget that this movie exists so I can still enjoy the raw energy and relentless pace of the first film. This movie is the second Boondock Saints film, yes, that's right, it's NUMBER TWO!

Was the above review useful to you?

58 out of 105 people found the following review useful:

I was very disappointed

Author: gharrett from United States
29 November 2009

This movie definitely let me down. It wasn't taken seriously, even by the actors. I'm sure it was very fun to make and I might have even enjoyed it a little bit if I didn't know the original existed. Granted, the first is a very hard act to follow, but it could have been much better. The first half of the movie I wanted to walk out, though the second was somewhat redeeming it just wasn't enough. I think Troy Duffy should give me my money back and start making music again. He had a brilliant idea with the first one and got very lucky making it so good, the second it is clear he was just having a good time with the cast and basking in the nostalgia of the first. I'm sorry, but this movie just isn't good.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day – "Bigger, Louder, Desperate"

Author: Fruit-Flix from Australia
5 April 2010

This whole movie feels forced, it is as though one of 'the saints' put a gun to the creators head and demanded a sequel.

The only people who are going to watch this are those who liked the original (which was a great niche action movie 8/10 stars). BSII fails to love up to the original in every way; interesting & entertaining characters are replaced with cheap & annoying ones; old gimmicks are simply rehashed; the leads look old & tired; recurring characters look lost & bewildered; and where the original BS story was simple, tight, & original, BS2's plot is overcomplicated and contrived.

There are some thrills and spills to be had in BSII, but it is difficult to watch something fall so far short from the quality of the original.

On the Fruit-Meter, BSII gets the "SULTANA (or RAISEN)' – The original grape was fresh and juicy, the sequel has lost all the original zesty flavours and has too many wrinkles.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 93 people found the following review useful:

If you enjoyed the first movie DON'T see this one!

Author: quinton007 from ZombieLand
3 December 2009

How to go wrong with a sequel:

1. Use the same storyline and premise and fail to build any new conflict.

2. Use all the same cinema techniques and add louder music.

3. Get the same cast but tell them to overact and look ridiculous.

4. Only spend five minutes writing your screenplay.

This movie is a joke. Troy Duffy obviously felt that he needed to cash in on his cult success with the first movie. There was no character development. The plot was only mildly different and the characters acted as if their IQ's had dropped forty points between movies. Horrible writing!! You shouldn't put a decade between ideas!

The original Boondock Saints had a gritty feel to it. The moments of comedy were never campy or corny, but actually a bit morbid. In this waste-of-money-called-a-sequel, there is no dark edge. The characters are lacking depth and conviction; it feels as if the cast is simply going through the motions. The story is not cohesive and the plot just plain fails to hold up. The only things that keep interest, are the flashback back-story sequences about the father.

Do not waste your time or money!

Was the above review useful to you?

58 out of 107 people found the following review useful:

A true saints fan is deeply hurt

Author: Yan Ohayon from Montreal, Canada
6 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If a class was given on cheesy action movies 101 and this was the final project handed in, expect an A+ mark. This movie failed on so many levels, it deeply saddens me.

I have and always have been a true fan of the original movie even thinking it might be a good idea to get their veritas and aequitas tattoos done. What was presented to me tonight was probably the worst piece of crap i have seen in recent times. Our good ole boys known for their strong poise turned in to a bunch of horrible actors making the dumbest jokes i have ever seen. What happened guys? Recession got you so you figured you would take this crappy part for the Ferrari fund? Where the first movie had power ,belief and a true direction, this movie was the complete opposite hopping around with no sense. A Mexican "funny man" as Rocco? Are you kidding me? How about the horrible "sit in" for Willem Dafoe or the crappy references to the first movie. I can keep going on and on about it although i must mention Billy Connoly (their dad in the first) played a solid part reminding me why i loved the saints so much.

It failed to the point where i almost walked out multiple times. Please skip this movie like the plague and keep the amazing memory of the first in your head. I sure wish i would of kept my money.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

A swing and a miss

Author: MastaKat74 from United States
25 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Anyone would be hard pressed to find a bigger fan of the first 'Boondock Saints' then myself. Personally I have it rated as my #3 film of all time (#1 Aliens, #2 The Dark Knight), but 'Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day' is a huge disappointment. It is actually so bad that it ruins the first film.

If you have NOT YET watched the movie and are reading this review, please do yourself a favor (if you are a BD1 fan) and skip this picture, it will tarnish your liking of the first movie.

1. Apparently the two brother have been in hiding since the end of the first film. Are you kidding me? WTF, that COMPLETELY ruins the intensity of the climax of the first film. At the end of the first movie the brothers go on this HUGE speech about how ANY evil person that is bucking the legal system and getting away with it will eventually meet the saints and their gruesome end. Apparently that speech only talk, cause they don't go hunting anybody down. Mr. Duffy I understand that you didn't get funding to do a sequel for ten years, but that was LAZY writing. I thought BD2 should have opened with a BADASS title sequence/montage of 10 years of the saints killing the worst of the worst from coast to coast. Pick a great song, lots of boody slow motion shooting, and throw up some titles. BAM, that's the opening BD2 needed! 2. Yakavettas' son is the villain in the sequel? First off Mr. Nelson looks like he would be the same age as his father and is a total miss as the bad guy (too goofy, tried to be funny). Second the MISSION STATEMENT of the saints is MUCH bigger then the Yakavetta family, so why in a sequel are we dealing with a dumber, less clever antagonist then we had before? Bad guys are supposed to get BIGGER and BETTER in a sequel, not dumber and slower. Perhaps a better antagonist would have been someone they crossed after 10 years of killing people? Somebody that they couldn't just steamroll over? Somebody (or maybe some people, evil twins?, whatever) They need a JOKER, MAGNETO, LEX LUTHOR, ETC. A villain who is on par and exceeds them in every way! 3. Character arc/evolution was non-existent. Why do they continue to stumble into every situation and just happen to come out on top? In the first movie they were just getting started on this path, so it worked from a writing perspective that they wouldn't have the ability to plan a functional military type assault. But after ten years they are still on the "lets just stumble in their and shoot, shoot, shoot" plan? LUCK WILL ONLY GET YOU SO FAR BEFORE IT GETS YOU KILLED. They need to up their game. Maybe Smecker hires a couple of ex Navy Seals or something to train them in weapons and tactics? Just something to elevate their game as the HUNTERS OF EVIL MEN. They can still be the drinking, s*** talking, Irish brothers that we love, they just need something to up their game. On another note this movie was CHALKED with characters that were UNWORTHY to be in a Boondock movie. Clifton Collins was 'hit and miss', but his character has potential. Special Agent Boom.......WTF TROY DUFFY, how do you go from William DaFoe to Julie BENZ?! Do I even need to say anything? She gets the 'Ryan Leaf' award, anybody knows what that means and I'll give you a dollar! 4. Julie Benz in the cowboy outfit. Yes that ONE SHOT gets an ENTIRE section in this critique. How drunk was TD when he wrote that scene? How drunk was everybody when they shot it? How drunk was TD and his editor in post production to keep it? CONCLUSION: Do NOT see in a theater. Do not BUY on blu-ray/DVD. Do not rent on blu-ray/DVD. Matter of fact any fan of the first film has an obligation to destroy any copy of this abomination floating around. This is a 1/2 assed clone of the 1st film, that's it. The first BD was 5 steps forward, BD2 was 10 steps back. If TD or anybody has a problem with this critique I would be happy to defend and offer LOGICAL notes on where the 3rd film can go. Even though this sequel sucked more then 'SpiderMan 3', the third BDS can be saved! So email if you'd like to talk/debate this. Nick

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history