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 2 of 19:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 187 reviews in total 

48 out of 91 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?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Wingless angels

Author: p-stepien from United Kingdom
26 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Blew goats

Author: conseann3ry from United States
24 March 2010

As a huge huge fan of the original I couldn't wait to see the sequel. I haven't been as disappointed as I am now for a movie since The Happening. This thing sucks more than a toothless prostitute.

While the original was dark with comedic moments the sequel is more a comedy and that's what it seemed the main focus was. Even with a gratuitous scene of Rocko and the boys telling jokes that had nothing at all to do with the rest of the movie.

Someone else said it best, it's as if Troy Duffy plagiarized himself. While the first movie contained surprises and things I hadn't seen in movies before the second movie was merely a rehashing of the original with a lot of gimmicks taken from John Woo and Tarentino movies. Beyond merely being like the original there are a lot of reminders of funny scenes in the first one. The cat scene was hilarious in the first one, however, after a cat walked across the bar while they were all drinking and they all gave the camera a goofy look I almost lost it.

This sort of thing is seen throughout, instead of new characters we just have new faces which are kind of like a copy of a copy. Just not as good as the original. Instead of new dynamic characters each character is flattened down a bit and basically told to act like their predecessor.

Anyways, I hoped that Duffy was going to do honors to the BDS with the sequel, however, he just kind of ruined them.

Bottomline: Stupidest movie I've seen in a while.

Was the above review useful to you?

46 out of 88 people found the following review useful:

Poor, poor sequel

Author: bifties from United Kingdom
11 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

50 out of 96 people found the following review useful:

Immensely Disappointing

Author: LolaBaby from California
12 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

53 out of 102 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?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Don't do it. Don't watch it. Walk away. This movie never happened.

Author: Hans Miniar Jónsson from Iceland
10 December 2014

Or rather, I wish it never happened. I mean, the first one was brilliant... or at least "good". The Boondock Saints is witty, entertaining, clever, good fun, and while it has some stereotypes and tropes it doesn't appear to go out of it's way to be prejudiced drivel.

This... is nothing like that movie.

All Saints Day feels like two hyper-testosterone boys, desperate to be "REAL MEN", with no cinematic experience that didn't involve loony toons, got together and wrote a shitty fanfic based on the first movie, and someone read it and thought to themselves that this was a great way to try and build a franchise.

The amount of "no homo" and slapstick in this pile of drivel is hideous. And the dream vision of how to be REAL MEN(tm) just takes the f-ing cake.

Only saving grace in the whole movie is... well... there isn't one.

If you enjoyed the Boondock Saints, walk away, this never happened.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This movie should never have been made

Author: david-sarkies from Australia
16 December 2013

*** This review may contain 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: elizgomez from Okinawa
26 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

48 out of 93 people found the following review useful:

Let those who enjoyed this live long and prosper...even though they're in denial.

Author: mendelmovie from United States
1 November 2009

I enjoyed the original film for it's sense of fun and it's wonderful off-the-cuff characters. If we learned anything from Lethal Weapon 4, it's that just copying what worked in a previous film is essentially making a mockery of your franchise. First of all, this script is fantastic...for a geek-fan in his first year of film school. For anyone else it's utterly horrendous in every way imaginable. I have never witnessed so many cliché's operating all at once. Sure, many of our favorite characters are back, but watching them all yell incoherently and blather profane language with no purpose or direction is just boring. This particular comment is mainly directed at the cops who's collective acting is a horror to behold. I don't know what happened with Willem Dafoe, but his absence is sorely missed. Julie Benz is nice to look at, (and wonderful on Dexter) but having her do a Kyra Sedgwick impression from "The Closer" was an embarrassing move on the part of Troy Duffy. The boys were adequate, I guess. Sean Patrick Flanery must have had some plastic surgery done to his face over the years cause he looks dreadful, but it is what it is. Another buzz kill was Clifton Collins Jr., a gifted actor who somehow thought that in order to replace Rocco, he needed to yell allot and make stupid faces. Most of the blame falls on Duffy's lap though. The guy must have just stood there while his actors were taking his already crappy dialogue and making it worse. This is where Willem Dafoe would have been of some use. What a waste. Having said all this, I will have to check this out again when it hits DVD. Here's why: This movie was so boring, so bland, so utterly unconvincing that it caused a patient film lover to get up out of his chair and walk the hell out with 30 minutes left to go. I will see the ending eventually, but no matter how good it might be, it cannot make up for the total disgrace that preceded it. Now, I don't begrudge Troy Duffy making a third film. The guy does have some talent hiding somewhere. I just hope he examines this lazy retread and dares to do better. He was HUNGRY when he made the first film. Troy, do us all a favor: GET FRIGGIN' HUNGRY AGAIN!

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