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 4 of 19: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 187 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

not cool enough to be good

Author: SnoopyStyle
24 April 2015

The MacManus brothers (Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus) are with their father (Billy Connolly) in an isolated farm in Ireland. A priest in Boston has been killed in a church using their style. The brothers dig up their other life and return to Boston to avenge the killing. FBI SPECIAL Agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz) takes over the investigation from the incompetent local cops. On the freighter to America, the brothers are joined by Mexican fighter Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.). Concezio Yakavetta (Judd Nelson) has taken over the gang after his father's killing by the MacManus.

The over-stylized mannerisms are interesting for a little while. However it becomes more of a distraction. It's not compelling enough to be interesting. It's not cool enough to be good. Julie Benz's accent gets a bit annoying. Billy Connolly only has a short cameo and the boys don't have his charisma. Everything is a little bit annoying like Judd Nelson and the movie is a messy mix.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not only weak, but annoying too

Author: Adam Peters from Birkenhead United Kingdom
3 September 2014

(19%) I haven't seen the first, and I'm not too sure if I want to after watching this. Main issue here is that they tried to cover up the crap plot with a thick helping of overblown garbage that stinks up all the movie's problems resulting in them if anything being highlighted and more clear. The two leads are an insult to 2D poorly fleshed comicbook characters, and the strong desire to be cool comes across as forced and annoying. The performances at times are acceptable for this type of thing, but the script is hampered by clueless dialogue and lackluster plot structure. Also, how many times can these Irish Jules from Pulp Fiction wannabes fire without reloading? Because I didn't know handguns had 2000 bullet capacity sized clips.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: Kieron Moore from England
5 May 2014

There are simply two reasons why I chose to view this film. 1) I heard that the original, and the sequel, profit off the same formula and obvious similarities of those well-loved crime movies, such as 'Pulp Fiction'. And 2) I wanted to see if Norman Reedus could actually act outside of his character in 'The Walking Dead'... which he can't.

I can't vouch for the original (which I haven't seen yet, but intend to) but this film is just messy. I was on board for literally a few minutes on account of the melodramatic and comical introduction to the brothers, but quickly lost interest.

The main downside is that this film tries to be funny throughout, but it clearly is not. In actual fact the 'funniest' character is that 'kinda' Mexican guy who chooses to help out the brothers. Other than that the characters, especially the detectives, are some of the most boring characters to ever hit the screen. Watch only if you are open- minded, that's the only way that you will have fun with this.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:


Author: neil-upto11 from UK
9 January 2014

Not a shred of the original charm remains. It's an animated corpse of a film. Talking of which, what the devil happened to Sean Patrick's face?! Between his plastic surgery and moronic ranting he looks vaguely sub-human.

Basically, scenes from the original 'Boondock Saints' are remade into stilted, feeble replicas. It's witless, poorly written and desperate.

If you loved the original (and I did) please do yourself a favour, resist the temptation and avoid this mess. At least that way, the magic of the first film will remain untarnished in your memory!

(Imdb want more lines, so Im padding.)

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Poor Clone of the Original

Author: PlugInYourBrain from Australia
17 August 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First-time Film Maker Troy Duffy had ten years to learn from his mistakes in the original "Boondock Saints." He's incredibly lucky to get a second chance at it, but its a lost opportunity.

There are two good one-liners in the movie. The rest of the dialog is atrocious: "I'm so smart I make smart people feel retarded." The Humour just isn't funny: One of the FBI Agents is called Kuntsler, so they call him "Kunty". If these have you in stitches, then this could be the movie for you.

The story is incoherent. A lot of gangsters get shot, but they're so poorly defined and you can't keep track of who they are or even what it's all about. This was a flaw in the original, and you would have thought in the ten years since Duffy might have thought about it and corrected it. No such luck.

There is no tension. Unlike the first movie, this one is played as a tongue-in-cheek comedy, complete with a stereotypical Mexican for comedy relief. There are a few friendly deaths along the way perhaps to remind us this is "serious business," but they don't register amongst the slapstick.

Apart from the fact he's played by Billy Connelly, there is nothing endearing about the character of Il Duce. His death is paint-by-numbers film making that doesn't carry the gravitas that Rocco's death did in the original. It is as if Duffy tries to imitate the original film without being quite sure how how he - or they - did it first time round.

In the first film despite his hubris and inexperience Duffy was able to turn in a relatively entertaining movie. One of the questions the documentary "Overnight" failed to answer was: Is Duffy a natural-born film maker, or did the original film's financiers parachute in a experienced production team to run the production him? The poor quality of this sequel suggests it was the latter.

Duffy had a good seminal idea for the original film, but that was it. There was so much wasted potential here.

Even casting the twins as sheep farmers at the beginning is lame, when we could have begun with them on the run after ten years dishing out justice - just as they promised they would be doing at the end of the first movie.

Peter Fonda who has a small cameo at the end is extremely good. Julie Benz provides some nice eye candy. Many have criticized her over-the-top accent and cowgirl outfit, but given the cornball tone of the movie what were they expecting? Benz is a capable actress doing what Duffy told her to do.

There's not much to enjoy here: The slow motion gun fights don't have the freshness they had in the original. That one of the twins now looks a bit on the fat side doesn't help. The bad guys running with pistols on a big estate look unconvincing. Apart from one shot with Peter Fonda at the end, the cinematography was pedestrian. Only the most dedicated fans could enjoy this movie. I am a fan of the original, but not this sequel.

An hour in I found myself wishing the movie was about to end. That's never a good sign: 4 / 10.

Suggest you watch "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" instead.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Age hits a man hard

Author: Paul Celano (chelano) from Howell, MI USA
18 January 2011

I just want to know what the heck happens to Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus through the ten years in between the first movie and this one? Age hit them hard. Especially Sean Patrick Flanery. At first I didn't even think it was the same guy. This film had very problems not making it as interesting as the first. First the Saints are just old. They do not seem as cool as they were when they were young. Another thing is that a lot of the scenes in this film were redone versions of scenes from the first. There is a scene with Julie Benz walking through a crime scene that was just like Willem Dafoe in the first. Also I really liked the way they filmed the first. It had more character where this was filmed more normal. It wasn't bad, just wasn't as good as the first. Then you have Clifton Collins Jr. He made a pretty cool character, but how he got to join the Saints was too easy. David Della Rocco was in the Saints in the first cause he was a friend. Clifton Collins Jr. just got lucky. Billy Connolly is still in the film and OK and Peter Fonda makes an appearance as a friend of Connolly's. Most of the original cast did come back for the film and it was great to see them. But it was really interesting to see what ten years does to the body. It just seems like the first movie focused on fun and this was too technical. You could tell on some of the new characters they came up with. Overall, it was fun to watch if you are a Boondock Saints fan, but it will never touch the greatness of the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

So So Very Bad...

Author: Danielle from United States
27 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was so looking forward to seeing this movie, but it was a huge disappointment. I completely ruins the first movie, to find out that everyone has simply been in hiding since then!

The dialog was super lame. In one of the earlier scenes they tried to implement the word "wicked" into their dialog, I suppose to make it seem more "Boston like" but it was so so forced and awkward sounding, and nobody ever used the word again! Even their favorite "F" word seemed overly forced sometimes.

They re-used jokes and scenes from the original movie that just showed a complete lack of creativity and very poor writing. Using the whole "Symbolism" reference again, having the new chick Benz have some of the same quirks as DaFoe did?? It's really just stupid- the way she analyzes the crime scenes, re-enacts them, etc, was all just like DaFoe, and what made that character so great was that he was so bizarre in his actions- this just made it seem "normal" or something. The use of the earplugs (or were they headphones?), her hand motions, her simulating guns and shooting, etc.

The scene of her dressed like a cowboy was just ridiculous. What were they thinking??

Having the brothers still fall into every situation as a complete disaster and still end up on top is getting old. By now they should know what they are doing- by the end of the first movie their actions were much more planned and skilled not just luck, and here they are just back to luck.

Them fighting inside the box on the forklift was wayy to similar to them fighting in the air ducts in the first movie. The rope references are getting old.

Why why why did they have a "Mexican" Roco character?? Why not just leave it to the brothers, why does there always have to be a third? It was super lame as well because when you first get introduced to this Mexican Romeo character you know where its going and find yourself thinking "oh, so he's going to join the brothers just like Roco, although I hope I'm wrong..." To have the same introduction as Roco as well- him begging them to include him, ugh it was all just super lame. The drinking scene in the "hideout" was much to similar to the drinking scene in Roco's girlfriends apartment, minus the dead cat- there was just NO originality, the simply re-used all the old ideas and themes with one new (awful) character.

The story line was bizarre- it was not creditable at all (they killed a Priest and made it look like the Saints did it to draw them out of hiding? I guess so they could eventually get their father out of hiding? And of course the Saints went for it- because someone killed their Priest, which doesn't make sense since Im' sure a lot of sh*t had gone down in the 10 years since they had been in hiding that did not draw them out...)

Music = AWFUL!! Too much, too loud, too over the top. Lastly, the bad guys seemed not so dangerous, really really bad shots (how do these guys keep NOT getting hit when they barge into scenes in plain view???). The bad guys here really didn't seem all that threatening. The short guy was a joke and a half. You never really felt as if the Saints were in danger.

The jokes were lame, the dialog was lame, the acting was down-right AWFUL, the "bad guys" seemed far less dangerous, the story line was not creditable, the new characters were awful, the old characters (especially the cops) failed as actors, overall just a huge huge disappointment.

The ONLY redeeming scene is the last one with the Saints in prison. (Not the scene where you realize DaFoe is still alive, I wanted to slap Benz's character in that scene... she acted like a moron).

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Just Plain Awful.

Author: Matthew Young from United States
11 May 2010

Boondock Saints II picks up a little while after the first one ended. The McManus brothers have gone home to Ireland until they are forced to return to America and avenge the death of a mutual friend.

Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day is terrible in every sense of the word. I honestly cannot believe that this did not go straight to video. The first movie was not Oscar worthy but compared to this, it's the greatest movie ever made.

There doesn't appear to be any actual humans in this movie. Every character from the first movie is magnified ten times into a ridiculous caricature, and all the new ones are absurd and annoying. Willem Dafoe, the only actual actor from the first one, is replaced by a new agent named Eunice who is absolutely ridiculous. Eunice is played by Julie Benz, who never was a great actress but manages to find a new low here with her awful southern accent and vulgar dialog. Rocco, the most annoying character in the first one, is replaced by another irritating comic relief character named Romeo, who is even more annoying and stupid than Rocco.

The script is very very bad as well. All the dialog is so vulgar and poorly written that this movie plays like a spoof of a guy's movie. The F word is shoved into almost every sentence as if it makes the movie cool just because there is a lot of cussing in it. The plot is very convoluted as well; characters enter and exit the movie with no explanation and every attempt to have a clever twist just adds to the mess. Some scenes are so off the wall that it's hard to be sure if this movie is supposed to be serious at all. I've got nothing against comedy; but is this just one big joke or is it a serious movie?

I am amazed that this was in theaters, and this is easily one of the worst sequels ever; even worse than Transformers 2. Avoid Boondock Saints II unless you just want to see how bad it really is or you're just such a huge of fan of the first one that you have to see what they did with it.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)

Author: SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain from United Kingdom
6 January 2012

It seems as though Duffy hasn't seen Boondock Saints in quite a while. This film has the same ingredients, but multiplied to a foolish amount. The dialogue is a lot more obvious than it was in the previous film, and it tries too hard to be funny. Collins does the best he can as the new sidekick, but his character is purely comical. Nelson puts on a misguided Pacino impression and Fonda just sits in a chair. The plot is pretty much the same, with Dafoe's place taken by a feisty female. Whereas the original came as a shockingly decent fun violent action movie, this is just cheesy and over the top. It is fun, but it's totally unnecessary.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Not an original thought to be found

Author: jelly336 from United States
13 February 2011

As a sequel, it added nothing to the first movie. It was a rehash of the same characters and action of the first. The entire movie consisted of a nonstop delivery of F-bombs, shootouts in slow-mo and a litany of homophobic jokes. If the action scenes had been left in "real time" the entire movie would have been about twenty minutes long. But in that short time they managed to work in almost every Italian, Mexican and mobster stereotype ever conceived.

I can't comment on the acting, because I didn't see any. Every line was delivered with a bare minimum of emotion or even inflection. The gem of the entire movie was the cameo by Peter Fonda as the aged Roman. Not only were his lines delivered in a slow monotone, he had absolutely no physical movement at all. Not a twitch, not a raised eyebrow, nothing. I'm not even sure he blinked. He looked and acted like a clothing mannequin propped up in a chair.

Let's hope this is the last we'll see of the Saints.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 19: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [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