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 guidemessage board
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
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 183 reviews in total 

48 out of 87 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?

24 out of 40 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?

28 out of 49 people found the following review useful:

Worst sequel I've ever seen!

Author: tom-681-36092 from United States
9 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Way to destroy the original movie! The cinematography was the only OK part. The dialogs were very artificial and low, low, low. An average high school kid would have written better lines. The acting was terrible! Over the top and not convincing at all.

It almost looks like Weird Al Yankovic wrote, directed and acted in it! Wait, let me take it back... If he had done it it would have been better.

I loved the original movie and the sequel makes me ashamed of it.

The first movie was an A-class movie. This one is a Z-class.

Don't waste your money!

Was the above review useful to you?

43 out of 79 people found the following review useful:

This sequel sucked.

Author: andrewlaparra from United States
29 November 2009

It was awful, awful, awful, awful, awful. Excessive language that made no sense, some chick FBI agent that was so fake southern, and a story that did not by any means redeem itself from the former movie. I give it no stars because it looks like it took 4 months to make. And that's bad, when in reality, they had 10 years to make it great. Do not go see this movie. Especially if your ticket costs 10 bucks, like mine did.

The guy FBI agents in the movie acted like pansies the whole time. And the crime lords' acting was terrible. Major overreacting. And also some- thing I noticed was the glamour shot piece in the middle of the movie where the FBI girl agent was doing a freakin fashion show.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely Unforgivable.

Author: TheDancingPopcorn from United States
21 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Let me start by imploring anyone... ANYONE who is a fan of the first movie to please, forget that this sequel has ever been made - I beg of you. To call this "movie" a travesty is an understatement. Hell, to even call this two hour mistake a "movie" is an insult to every mili- second of acting ever captured on microfiche in the history of cinema.

If you're a fan of the film "Boondock Saints," be warned that this production not only goes out of it's way to insult and punish you for being a fan of the original, but deliberately creates ways to destroy nearly every aspect of it's mythos - blatantly devising plot holes that suddenly stretch across both films. It's incredibly difficult to believe that this feature was created, written, directed and performed by the exact same people from the first film, as this sequel - due to it's frequent slapstick elements, Troma-esquire style of incessant bad acting and complete unbelievability - it seems more as if the Farrelly Brothers ripped off the concept and cast Jim Carrey to play all available parts, passing off the finalized bowel movement as "All Saints Day."

I have yet to figure out what was wrong with Sean Patrick Flanery twenty minutes into this film. The first twenty minutes every actor looked fine, a little older, maybe a little heavier, but it was still the same crew. And then, it seemed, Sean Patrick Flanery appeared to either suffer from a bad case of the mumps or had been subjected to one of the worse cases of botox I have ever seen; his face swelled, his skin looked airbrushed and he seemed to lose the ability to completely close his eyes. His appearance changed so drastically at one point, I had to jump onto Internet Movie Database just to check if it was, in fact, him in this movie.

The three cops from the first film, who provided some ironic (if not, iconic - "symbology?") elements of comic relief before, were regretfully transformed into The Three Stooges for this project and the addition of Julie Benz seeming to play an F.B.I. parody of Kyra Sedgwick's character on "The Closer" made the scenes NOT focused on the MacManus Family almost as nauseating as the ones that were.

Judd Nelson as an ethnic Godfather-type character (which was a bit like watching Gary Coleman attempting to play "The Hulk") and Clifton Collins Jr. as the brothers' new third (which was like replacing Rocco in the first film with "Pest" era John Leguizamo) were the perfect cast choices to round out this production of "My God, What Were They Thinking?"

Troy Duffy, the "director" here attempted to multiply everything of the first movie by a hundred: the caricatures of the mob bosses are a hundred times more unbelievable and the tongue-in-check, goofy expressions are a hundred times more overly dramatic. With all of these and, so much more, the overall feeling of "Boondock Saint's 2" is, at minimum, a hundred times worse than the original - and that's being kind.

This sequel, this "movie" is unforgivable. Absolutely unforgivable and the experience of watching it is nothing less than painful. I was in a car crash last week (I actually was!) and it was honestly more enjoyable than this picture, in at least it was over quicker. And if all my words still don't dissuade you from checking this out from your local Blockbuster, I end with two things:

1. It is my personal opinion that all people involved in this movie, including writer/director Troy Duffy, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus and Billy Connolly should be taken to court and tried for war crimes against cinema.

And 2. I am seriously considering cracking my copy of the original "Boondock Saints" in half, solely on the fact that I cannot imagine a situation where I could ever bring myself to think about this sequel ever, ever again.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

If you liked BS1, do yourself a favor and skip this one

Author: dnooman from United States
26 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have watched BS1 at least six times. I have told everyone I know that they absolutely must see it. Sadly, I must now tell everyone I know to save themselves from at the very least a 2 hour waste of time, and at most having paid good money to see one of the worst scripted movies I have ever seen.

It is shockingly bad. Not even "funny" bad, just pathetic. I waited a long, long time for this, and it just slaps the first movie in the face. Obviously, had the first movie never been made, or never been seen as such a sleeper hit, this movie would have been laughed out of every studio with a quickness. The only redeeming parts of it were blatant re-hashes from the first movie, and a few of the actors managed to defy Duffy's direction and actually act. Those being Fonda, Connolly, and Dafoe (who's in it for about 2 minutes).

There comes a point where a movie is not bad in a subjective sense, but it is bad in a purely objective sense. Sad to say, but all the other former fans giving this a one star rating can't all be wrong.

What a disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

an unworthy sequel to an incredible film

Author: Spaceygirl ( from Johannesburg, South Africa
3 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Boondock saints 2 isn't an awful movie, it's not even an abysmally bad movie, it's just not nowhere near as good as the original. Whereas the first one had sly, almost dry humour, the sequel is crude in it's execution with lame one-liners and over-the-top set pieces. The script is poorly written and the dialogue is stilted. It coasts on it's 'remember-when' factor, all the old familiar characters are back, including some killed off in the original, with a few new faces. Clifton Collins, who grated in Crank is just as annoying in this and the addition of Julie Benz was a bad choice. She's completely OTT and her accent is one of the most annoying ever heard, although she does wear great shoes. I only reason I gave it three stars was for Sean Patrick Flannery and Norman Reedus and for, surprise, surprise, Peter Fonda in the cameo of the year. He and Billy Connelly share a brief electrifying scene near the end of the movie. Mr Duffy, hang your head in shame.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

There is bad, worse, and then there's Boondock Saints II

Author: The_Crentist from United States
18 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As a HUGE Boondock Saints fan I'd have to say not only was I disappointed in this film but I was also furious. This movie lacked the originality that the first film had and it also lacked the depth. It is an abomination of the Boondock Saints title and Troy Duffy should be ashamed. I came into this movie with very low standards and hopes after seeing the trailers which seemed to me a mockery of the film. I would first like to point out my biggest peeve in the film, which was the acting. The cops in the film were TERRIBLE!!! I have never seen such bad acting in my life, which confuses me because in the first film they were fairly good. Then came Julie Benz(who I happened to be a fan of). She really impressed me in the show "Dexter" but in this movie she was flat out bad, in plain English. Her southern accent was one I would picture an amateur child would do at a middle school talent show. As for the saints, well I have no complaints about their acting in general.

Next we move on to the Russian mob who had no such Russian accents. Okay maybe they are just descendants of their Russian ancestors but my God, some of them sounded Irish to me!! And to top it off none of them were remotely intimidating, But I digress. Anyway there were way too many holes in the movie and it lacked Amazingly but Iam no film critic so I advise all to see the movie before commenting.

To all the Boondock Saints fans: You must see this movie, overall it is a bad movie but worth seeing if you are a die hard fan of the first one. But be prepared to be upset, angry, and confused as I was. I will keep this movie in my collection but would like to express my dismay to the people who made this. I have enormous respect for the writers and producers of this movie but guys come on, you could have done 1000x better I know this!! Anyway Im just a college student bored at 3:03am so what do i know? Boondock saints be aware that this does not even compete with the first one but perhaps you may find something you like in it.

Was the above review useful to you?

47 out of 90 people found the following review useful:

Completely different direction from the original

Author: johnnyrocket55 from United States
6 December 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was anxious to see the sequel to one of my favorite movies...And then I was disappointed I had seen the sequel to one of my favorite movies. The direction this movie was taken in seems completely different IMO. The first one had its humor, but it was more "sprinkled" in compared to BDS II. It seemed as though the genre might as well be listed as comedy and leave it at that. The acting was pretty bad, and I'm usually fairly tolerant or don't notice bad acting. Someone else mentioned the transition between scenes was either poorly edited or not edited at all, and I'd have to agree. I was almost wondering if there was some technical difficulty with the projector or something that skipped part of the scene. The jokes were full of stereotypes (which I don't normally have a problem with but there was seemingly nothing else besides that). There seemed to be a lot of pointless or dragged out scenes that really contributed nothing but overacted comedic jokes that contributed very little to the actual story. Another commenter mentioned the first movie's focus was message first and then humor, so if that's why you liked it, you might not like BDS II. Oh and the music was just over the top and annoying, this movie had more music playing than MTV does in a week.

Was the above review useful to you?

52 out of 100 people found the following review useful:

Don't watch this

Author: vetteparty from Netherlands
14 February 2010

I had high expectations, as I very much enjoyed the first movie. I was also very pleased to see the return of the father and his sons as the original far so good! Were it not that this new movie is almost an exact copy of the 1st one! The characters are not worked out in more depth, the mobsters are simply replaced with new ones, there's a new annoying sidekick in Rocco's place and the gunfights seem to be amped a bit. The very cool agent Willem Dafoe has been replaced by a female FBI agent who acts a bit too tough for her character and has a southern accent that is again, very annoying and distracts from the actual story.

At 2 hours playtime in total I'd recommend that you'll find something else to with your time...ANYTHING else...clean up your house, sleep go out or take a walk.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [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