The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
185 Reviews
Sort by:
8/10
I got what I wanted as a fan. Others might not.
thedarkwolf33321 November 2009
I am an avid fan of the original movie. While the concept of vigilantism has been around for decades in film, it was never communicated in such a way. The original movie was both entertaining, and made certain statements about society. After all, isn't the first purpose of film to entertain, and the second to create a message? If the first movie focused on the message, the second seemed to focus more on the entertainment. I'm OK with that. I already know what the McManus boys are all about. Still, it was refreshing to see Il Duce's beginning as a killer, even catching a glimpse of the first version of the gun vest.

I was very skeptical of Clifton Collins Jr., thinking that he would simply be a stand-in for Rocco. He wasn't. He had his own personality, although I would have liked to have seen him involved in what the boys were doing on a more personal level. It was like he was waiting for them to come along just so he would have an excuse to kill mobsters.

The humor, slow-motion gunfights, and light-hearted moments were back. During the first half, I sometimes felt the humor needed to be left behind and the serious tone needed to come into play, but the second half delivered that aspect very well, so it balances out in the end.

Julie Benz. Hmmmm. Attractive, intelligent, fun. But the southern accent is so thick I had a hard time focusing on anything else.

I would like to make a special note of how ridiculous it is for someone to dual-wield Desert Eagles, even if they have compensators attached.

Still, none of my complaints stopped me from enjoying the movie. I watched it for what it is. An over the top-low(er) budget film that was written to please fans of the original. I took it for what it is, and I think I'm better off for it.

Many people criticize Troy and the films themselves, some going so far as to say fans should go kill themselves. The internet, where everyone thinks their opinion is fact, and everyone is a hardass. If you don't like the movies, fine, but please, don't insult the intelligence of the fans. Liking something that you don't doesn't make us any less intelligent than you. If you want to pick on someone, pick on the Twilight fans that think those movies are a real representation of love and vampire mythology.

I hear Troy can be a bit of a douche. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. What isn't true, is that the movies do not rip off of Tarantino. I like Tarantino's work, but he was not the first person to do the flashback narrative, dual wielding of pistols, slow motion gunfights, etc. etc. That's like saying Halo was the first good shooter. All movies borrow elements from one another. They're called themes and archetypes.

All in all, an enjoyable film that gives the fans a taste of what they've been missing for ten years. The editing is a little spotty at times, and not everything hits the right beat, but simply to see the boys in action again was enough to make me smile and laugh out loud, and once again, isn't that what movies are supposed to do? Its supposed to entertain us.
199 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
What a waste...
headfulofghosts12618 February 2010
Warning: 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.
185 out of 292 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Wingless angels
p-stepien26 June 2012
After a priest is murdered in Boston and attempts are made to pin it down on the brothers Connolly (a return to their roles by Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) the 'saints' decide to return from Ireland to set matters straight. On the way home they pick up an irritating Mexican side-kick Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr. in probably his worse performance to date) and get down to the killing business. Hot on their heels special agent Eunice (Julie Benz), trained by the legendary Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe's character in the original).

Verging on a spoof rife with pointless and unwelcome nods to the original this is Troy Duffy on self-destruct mode essentially rendering his previous accomplishment with the first movie null and void. To the extent that I feel strongly obliged to rewatch "The Boondock Saints" and reassess my initial positive reaction to the concept and execution.

Featuring some atrocious script filled with terrible jokes, jabs and punchlines, sold by a less than involved cast giving an eye-gouging terrible ensemble performance, hardly anything goes right for the movie. As expected the story is unfeasible and overboard, but lacks any degree of subtlety with settings constantly on mock mode.

A pointless and harmful sequel to "The Boondock Saints", which will likely implode Troy Duffy's movie career.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The Boondock Saints 2
Angelus215 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The MacManus brothers return to America, in order to exact revenge upon the killer of a priest, they once knew. The plot is weak, and sadly the quality simple keeps deteriorating from there on.

This film tries to recreate the quirkiness of the first film, however it fails miserably. The cast is relatively the same, Julie Benz who plays the beautiful Eunice, but thats all she actually provides.

The acting is atrocious, the dialogue is even worse, the characters are one dimensional and those that are given 'quirky' traits fail to entice the audience.

But the biggest fault lies in the comedy, it's just not funny, at all. The jokes are all outdated or offencive and the main two characters seem to come in and out of their accents, overall the film fails to give its predecessor a good name.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Not quite what I had hoped for after 10 years, but good none the less
cadillac201 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.
85 out of 136 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Major disappointment : (
priest_of_zeus18 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.
60 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Creators couldn't make up their minds
Primo8413 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.

5/10
114 out of 196 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day – "Bigger, Louder, Desperate"
Fruit-Flix5 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.
23 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
It's like a cartoon version of something that was once good.
JJ Brent11 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!
122 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I was very disappointed
gharrett29 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.
59 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
If you enjoyed the first movie DON'T see this one!
quinton0073 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!
52 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
A true saints fan is deeply hurt
Yan Ohayon6 December 2009
Warning: 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.
58 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A swing and a miss
MastaKat7425 March 2010
Warning: 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 CollinsNK@gmail.com
25 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worst sequel I've ever seen!
tom-681-360929 March 2010
Warning: 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!
29 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
This movie should never have been made
david-sarkies16 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was really really bad and pretty much lives up to the rule that all sequels basically suck (okay, that is a bit of a broad generalisation however when you mention a sequel to most people the immediate reaction is to roll one's eyes and groan). This movie simply seemed to try to capitalise on what made the first movie so great and basically failed on all levels. Even the cliff hanger at the end really, really, annoyed me because I simply do not want to wait to see how the saints get out of the predicament that they landed themselves up in.

Anyway, as I said, this film is one of those films that seems to try to rehash what worked really well in the first movie, and while, unlike The Hangover Part II, this film is not basically a complete retelling of the first film, it does try to do things, and introduce characters that are modelled on characters in the original film. Now, DaFoe's character in the original film was brilliant, so they brought in his protégé, who instead of listening to classical music, she simply puts ear plugs in. In the first film you had the mafia go-getter (Rocco I believed his name was) tagging along and providing them with information, however in this one you had this really, really, painfully annoying Mexican play that roll.

I have read another review that seems to pretty much say everything that I can and will say about this film. Basically, if you loved the first film, don't even bother with this one because it will simply destroy any respect that you had from the original masterpiece.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Forced...
elizgomez26 October 2013
The characters and jokes seem forced... The special agent seems to be written to be kooky, but is nothing like the spectacular character Defoe played, and comes across as annoying. Almost bad enough to be laughable - hard to watch.The plot does not seem to be cohesive. A very few characters in the movie come across as believable - many say their lines, but the words sound odd... I am working hard to write anything else about this movie to make ten lines since I really thought it was awful and there are only so many ways you can talk about how terrible the lines, characters and lack of plot are. I am rarely a fan of sequels and this movie proves exactly why I am hesitant to watch subsequent offerings on good movies.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This sequel sucked.
andrewlaparra29 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.
50 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Completely different direction from the original
johnnyrocket556 December 2009
Warning: 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.
48 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Absolutely Unforgivable.
TheDancingPopcorn21 March 2010
Warning: 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.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
If you liked BS1, do yourself a favor and skip this one
dnooman26 February 2010
Warning: 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.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Don't watch this
vetteparty14 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 actors...so 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.
53 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Boston Screening
dbones31020 October 2009
Last night I went into Boston for the first ever screening of the Boondock Saints II, and it was simply AMAZING! The long awaited, highly anticipated sequel to the cult classic did not disappoint, and we were lucky enough to be able to view it along with Troy Duffy, Bob Marley, Billy Connolly, Sean Patrick Flanery, and Norman Reedus. Fans of the first movie will definitely enjoy seeing this film and is a MUST SEE for any Boondock fanatic. Kudos to the cast and crew for making a film that stayed true to the original, yet realistically modernized it to reflect the years that have passed since the original release. Sexy, smart, funny, and action-packed, All Saints Day was everything you want to see in a great flick, plus more. A great experience! Highly recommended, so GO SEE IT when it's released! You will not be sorry that you did. This girl certainly wasn't ;)
79 out of 158 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Immensely Disappointing
LolaBaby12 December 2009
Let me preface this by saying that Boondock Saints (the original) is my favorite movie. I thought Duffy did a great job with the first flick-fine script, fun performances-such an enjoyable film. I was one of the maddening crowd waiting with baited breathe for the sequel. We're not talking "Citizen Kane" here, but a well rounded, entertaining piece of celluloid. I've turned many people on to "Saints" over the years, and happily so. I was really excited BS2 finally getting made, and couldn't wait to see what Duffy was going to do with the story.

I can honestly say, this movie sucked. To say I was disappointed is an understatement. OK, the good parts: Sean, Norman, and Billy were fine. They fell back into their roles with ease, and had a couple fun lines, and seemed natural playing the parts. The storyline wasn't horrible. The sets were good, the cinematography was fine. No complaints with the technical parts of the BS2.

The script was awful. The acting? Disgraceful. That chick? What was the deal with the crappy accent? The affectations? Her "badassness" was contrived and insulting. Judd Nelson overacted-surprise!-again! So did everyone else. Lines were delivered poorly. Some lines were just completely embarrassing. "DING DONG!" Wow. Yawn. I enjoyed the first 15 minutes, right up through the brawl and the boys hooking up with the little scrapper. Then the movie went quickly downhill from there.

In all my movie-viewing years, I've only walked out on one theatrical release: "Robin Hood: Men In Tights". I can now add BS2 to that list. We couldn't even force ourselves to sit through to the end. Such a shame, too. Those characters (and Sean, Norman and Billy) deserved a better fate.

No clue what the hell Duffy was thinking, but I can tell you: this is one movie I will never recommend to friends. Watch the first one again rather than waste your time and money on this load of poop. It's a hour and 45 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. We are not amused.
50 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Poor, poor sequel
bifties11 February 2010
I'm not sure if it was the bad acting, poor cinematography or just bad directing, but this was a sequel that should never have been made. As a huge fan of the original I went into this movie with high expectations, and was let down at almost every turn. Norman Reedus did well to carry on where he left off, and Billy Connolly had some moments, but Sean Patrick Flanery appears to have forgotten how to act and may very well have had a botched face lift since the last film. Julie Benz gave probably the strongest performance, though for the life of me I did not recognise her at all, yet Clifton Collins Jr. failed miserably in replacing David Della Rocco's character While watching the film I was already preparing my review, hoping that my opinion would change by the end, and I was most looking forward to slating the writer and director for so badly following in Troy Duffy's footsteps, well at least until the credits started rolling and I discovered that Troy Duffy wrote and directed this film as well. In my opinion fans of the original are best off staying far, far away from this film. As for those that have yet to see the original, go watch it, then stay far, far away from this god awful movie.
46 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
an unworthy sequel to an incredible film
Spaceygirl3 April 2010
Warning: 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.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews