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 5 of 19: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 187 reviews in total 

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?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

I was so disappointed...

Author: jessalynnfhlax from United States
24 October 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Overall, the movie wasn't terrible, but if you loved the original as much as I did, this was sub- par, and that's being generous.

The acting wasn't like I expected, and that's upsetting. Plus, they tried to make too many inferences to the first one... sure you want some connections between the two films, but they added just too much, it seems like they were trying too hard. This one had more comedic relief than the first, and it was obvious, not the subtle, dark humor the first one had, but even some "slapstick" moments that don't belong in the movie at all. The new Fed woman, Benz, did not, in any way, fill in Dafoe's role from the first... good effort and attempt to emulate his quirkiness, but I'm sorry, it was a fail, there is no substitute. And I didn't like her blatant involvement with the Saints... after everything the writers did to make this movie similar to the first, you would think they would try and duplicate how Smecker helped them, but hey, that's just me. Same goes for Rocco, his counterpart, Romeo (they even tried too hard with his name, having it also start with an "R")... he wasn't funny to me at all, or maybe it's just the fact that he isn't Rocco, and just a poor stand-in.

However, there were some funny moments, I am not going to deny that. Greenly (rest his poor soul) was the funniest to me. Perhaps, because he was able to build off his character from the first movie, I was able to appreciate him. Duffy and Dolly were pretty good, and I was glad to see them back... and of course goes the same for Poppa, Murphy, and Connor (and of course Doc!). And Rocco's appearances were a good addition as well... I was on the fence when I saw him at the beginning, but his sequence in the middle made me glad he was at least in the movie a little. And, finallyyyyy, I was the most excited about Dafoe's appearance at the end... I was genuinely surprised and ecstatic to see him... He seemed the most comfortable out of all the actors (him and Connolly), he just was natural, unlike everyone else who really just tried too hard.

I'm still up in the air about the ending. I don't know how I like having an undetermined ending. Yes, I guess now I'd like to see the third one (as long as I don't have to wait another 10 years), just for the sheer fact to see Dafoe in his role again for more than three minutes. On the other hand, me being an impatient person, would have liked to see it in this one.

In all, this was just nowhere near as good as the first. I don't really know how to explain it, but it just didn't FEEL like the first, and that's what made the first one so great. So, I would say, sure watch this movie, but don't go into it believing that it's going to be as great as the first. In fact, watch this one first, then watch the original... then you'll understand what I mean.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good god!!

Author: avriapocalypse from United States
13 July 2010

I can't even sit through this BS! I was so bored with this film, I'm taking multiple restroom breaks, cooking meals, anything I can do to avoid listening to this crap just hoping something exciting would happen later. This makes a half ass attempted to be funny but is NOTHING like the original. Funnything is I usually enjoy these over the top tongue in cheek dialogue action films originally inspired by the style of Quinton Tarintino, but this one just doesn't do anything for me. You want to see how a film like this should be done? Rent HELL RIDE. Good with over the top humor and action. Quinton's worst film (DEATHPROOF) scores much higher than this one. Even the female who attempts to replace Willem Defoe was horrible. "I'm so smart, I make the smart people feel retarded". Good god!! She never even says anything intelligent during the whole film!!!! Norman Reedus and Sean P Flannery just looks as if they are really not having fun at all with this one. Much similar to how Wesley Snipes was portraying Blade in BLADE TRINITY.

I don't know. For average easy to please people who haven't seen the first one, they may be blown away, but I've watched this type of film far to long to be impressed. Like I said, the first film was a sleeper hit. This one, misses the target. It should have went straight to DVD. Hell, SMoking Aces 2 (The direct to DVD sequel) was far more entertaining than this film. I know with these type of films, they are not so much focused on the acting as much but, jeesh. I just could not engage into this movie. I wanted so bad to see a funny action film and this one just let me down.

Maybe I will look for more P.J. Pesce, Larry Bishop, Robert Rodriguez, & Quinton Tarintino films to get my full squeeze out of the lemon.-Avri.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

i can't believe this has more than 2 stars

Author: webmaster-1615 from United States
8 May 2010

i am trying to wrap my head around who would give this movie 7 stars. maybe it was a group of anarchists trying to skew the scoring just for the hell of it. maybe it was a marketing company who needed to get some buzz for this film. i don't know.

i really liked the first film- it was a lot of fun. well-written, editing and cinematography was good and overall the movie fulfilled my most deepest revenge fantasies.

this time around the anger and spitfire insults sounded hollow, almost pathetic.the violence seemed just downright stupid. the production values are non-existent. the sound quality is flat, music is mediocre. the plot- flimsy.


i gave up after 30 minutes.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 13 people found the following review useful:


Author: abs-ghosh from United States
3 April 2010

I can't say I did not see this coming but I was still curious seeing as how I didn't hear a word about this movie from anyone around here in Boston (which is very surprising). As a tribute I gathered my roommates to watch the first one and then a double feature with the second. As expected the first was well received but 20 minutes after the second everyone fell asleep (I included) but I woke a few minutes later struggled to watch the whole thing.

The conclusion: My God!!! What the hell did I just see. I can barely even remember the movie parts cause its so bad. The very beginning of the movie makes you wonder what the hell is going on. Then as it keeps going you realize they are trying be more complex and trying to have the same humor at the same time which all falls flat all to badly. The thing to realize is that most of the new characters you see are nothing but mere stand in for the original. Julie Benz is terrible as Eunice bloom, very hot but its very obvious that was the reason they had her for this film. Also if anyone has seen the first they know that the funny man is longer in the picture, that is why you will wonder who/and why is the third such a stand out. his addition gives the feeling that I am in a Rob Schnieder flick. Perhaps if it were viewed as a parody it may barely pass but as a sequel to a decent movie... I don't know what happened here.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 19: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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