The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 7 of 19: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 188 reviews in total 

10 years for this?

Author: hall895 from New Jersey
30 May 2010

The Boondock Saints was a bloodbath but it had its charms. Ten years later we get the sequel which unfortunately is a rather charmless bloodbath. If all you want to see is our heroes shooting a bunch of bad guys you won't be disappointed. But if you're looking for a compelling story in between all the shootings you're out of luck. Heck, forget compelling I'd settle for just coherent but the movie doesn't even really achieve that. It's nice to see the boys back in action again after all this time. But this movie will certainly not be remembered as fondly as the original.

The sequel retains most of the cast and many of the signature touches from the first film. But there are a few very important pieces missing. What this movie misses more than anything else is undoubtedly Willem Dafoe as FBI agent Paul Smecker. This time around Smecker's gone, replaced by his female protégé Eunice Bloom, played by Julie Benz. Sadly the character of Eunice just does not work at all. Benz appears to be making a desperate attempt to make Eunice as quirky and eccentric as Smecker was. Her performance comes across as forced and completely unnatural and it is a big black mark against the film. Dafoe held the first film together, Benz threatens to tear this one apart. Also missing from the first film is the popular character of Rocco. Of course he had to be missing, there was really no way around that even if writer/director Troy Duffy tries to shoehorn him in to some fantasy sequences here. For all intents and purposes Rocco has been replaced by Romeo, the Saints' new Mexican sidekick played by Clifton Collins Jr. Wherefore art thou Rocco? Because Romeo is not what this movie needed. He tries to be funny. He fails miserably at it.

The new characters don't work and what Duffy's done with some of the old ones makes very little sense. The detectives who were bit players last time around have bigger roles this time. Except Duffy appears to have forgotten that these guys, Detective Greenly especially, were pretty much hapless jokes in the first film. Now all of a sudden Greenly's some kind of hero? It doesn't feel right. And what of our central characters, the Saints themselves? After their big speech at the end of the first movie I assume they and Daddy dearest have spent the last ten years hunting down and killing evil scum. Well...not so much. But once they do spring into action it's like they never left. Without Dafoe, and with Benz being a total misfire, it's pretty much left to Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus to carry this movie and they do a pretty decent job of it. Their performances are good but they are let down by some of those around them. Perhaps they have been let down most of all by Troy Duffy. The Boondock Saints is his baby, after ten years of waiting to make this movie you'd think he could come up with something better than this. The movie's so poorly written that no director could save it. The fact that the director is of course Duffy himself was never going to help matters. Scorsese he is not. There are enough callbacks to the first film here to make you remember why you liked the Saints in the first place. But if this sequel works for you at all it will only be because you liked the first film so much. Taken on its own merits this movie is rather disappointing. It's nice to see the Saints again, you just wish you could have seen them in a better movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

would've been better if i hadn't seen the first one

Author: WilliamTeller from United States
4 May 2010

i went into this movie with expectations from the first without reading any reviews... clearly it doesn't run along the same lines of the first one but without watching the first i think it would have definitely been better. unfortunately, the movie seemed like they were painfully trying to mimic the first film's action sequences and feeling. (ie. the shooting scenes and the five letter sidekick name beginning with an r and ending with an o). don't bother watching it if you're a fan of the first. if you do happen to watch this one, try to go in with the frame of mind you'd have for Shoot Em Up... a blank mind ready to observe over-the-top violence.

Was the above review useful to you?

Waste of time

Author: marmara34
4 May 2010

I liked the first (I call it "original") movie so much. This movie has lack of seriousness according to point of view of first script.

First of all, the soundtrack could be better. It let me feel that I was watching a cheap TV movie.

In spite of all disappointment, I rate this movie 5 out of 10 because the actors have done their job well.

By the way, they are going to make third of it, I am sure. I think it is not going to be better than that. (We know from the movie "SAW")

The last thing I would like to mention is this movie is not worth to go to the movie theater and watch.

Thanks anyway.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Is this a joke ? Because I didn't laugh.

Author: ilkayjordan from United States
18 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all, I'm a huge fan of The Boondock Saints I. It was cool and I didn't force myself to get in mood. Especially Willem Dafoe was great. But this time, it started like a parody of The Boondock Saints. I tell you what makes this movie a parody. A character instead of Rocco(and he was trying to be a part of the team like Rocco,what a shame !), A detective woman acting like W.Dafoe, Insincere dialogs and atmosphere.

The main advice is if you want to make a sequel, you shouldn't force the characters. Let us feel the story. For instance, you heard that they are making a new Batman movie. You can't witness these things; Gordon tells Batman how much he loves him, Joker says he'll take his revenge and someone named as Bobin instead of Robin. What is this ! I was bored and it was a boring process to wait until the end of the movie. They should have protected the lines between the characters and create new characters instead of copying the old one.

I had fun from the last 3 minutes of the movie. Willem's part was good(And I gave 5 out of 10 because of this). And that's all about the good parts of the movie. Sorry I meant the parody.

I'm warning you. If you watched first one, Please don't decide to give it a shot. It will ruin all your good memories about the The Boondock Saints. I thought nothing was going to happen but I wish I hadn't watched this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

My unfinished/unedited review/ramble from 4/4/10.

Author: ElijahCSkuggs from Happy Land, who lives in a Gumdrop House on Lolly Pop Lane
12 February 2012

Do I have to mention that I'm a fan of the first? I see that quite a few comments are starting like that, so I guess I'll also roll with the flow. So, yep, I'm also a fan. Actually, in 2000 I bought a Boondock Saints VHS for 35 bucks on Ebay. Of course I'd have expectations for this movie. I want the Saints back in action, but I also want a solid flick, so this 10 year wait, was fine with me. That is, if the movie turned out to be worth it. Was it? No. It wasn't.

Boondock Saints 2, even though 10 years in the making, still felt like some sort of cash-in. Instead of using creativity to maybe make something worthwhile and truly sequel-worthy, they made it this sort of over-the-top comedy. Get the f@ck outta here! Duffy, for some reason or another decided to go the easy route. And what's the easy route? By taking every single thing that worked in the original and using it again, in an attempt to improve upon it. That right there, is the pussiest way to go about making a sequel. Oh, I guess you need examples. Alright. Need a new sidekick, right? Sure. Throw in a stereotypical Mexican dude who they have perform an arm-bar in the opening scene (cash in on the MMA craze much?). I would say he's the comedy relief of the film, but no, they have about four other characters being used for the same thing. Anyways, if the sidekick didn't work, in the case he wasn't enough like Rocco, they added a buffoon Mafia character that acted like Rocco. Oh, and if he wasn't enough, Rocco made a return as well! Of course in dream sequences only. And what the f@ck were those stupid macho rants about?

Then ya got the new female Willem Dafoe character. Oh man, this was a massive issue for me. Southern accent, walks like a super model, mimics Dafoe's methods from the first…get the hell outta here with this sh!t. That's all they could think of? At least you could have made her gay like Willem's character, or maybe even a tad risqué. A nip slip, maybe? Of course not. Were we really supposed to buy into this character? Was she supposed to live up to one of Dafoe's best performances? Really? Seriously? Wow.

One thing that some people don't seem to realize about the first Boondock Saints is that it excelled because of its all-male cast. There was no love-interest bullsh!t. There was no drooling over the girls. Just like with any comic book movie that comes out now, there is this seemingly out of place, romantic/love subplot that has to be put in because there needs to be something to relate to for our more sensitive/mainstream movie-goers. But there wasn't anything like this in the first, and that was wildly successful with all crowds…? Oh yeah, I totally forgot about how this was a comedy. It's all a joke. This movie is a joke. Maybe instead of trying to create a blockbuster, a comedy/action blockbuster, he'll go down a different route. Something on the darker side.

Boondock Saints 2 worked story-wise on one level moreso than any other. And that was the flashback sequences of when 'Da', Billy Connolly's character became who he was. One of those scenes truly worked, and non-surprisingly, it was the most violent scene of the movie. ……………………….

2/12/12 - Yeah, I just gave up with this review. Bottom line, the movie stunk.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 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?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Not as bad as everyone makes it out to be

Author: trikster40-1 from United States
15 December 2010

I was very wary of even watching this movie. I had heard such horrible things about it, with some people even saying it made them hate the first one. In reality, it isn't all that bad. I remember seeing the first movie on Blockbuster Video shelves as it was a Blockbuster exclusive. I rented it on a whim and it was great. When I heard there was a sequel, I was excited but then I started hearing all the horrible reviews.

Yes, it isn't great or as good as the first movie. I just think people's expectations were WAY too high for their own good. This movie doesn't take itself near as seriously as the first one. I even laughed in a quite a few spots, mainly because my expectations were too low and I just took the movie as it is. Watch it with an open mind and just enjoy it.

My main complaints were Julie Benz and Clifton Collins Jr. I LOVE Julie Benz in Dexter, but her ridiculous Southern accent was just atrocious. I also love Clifton Collins, he was great in Extract, but he was supposed to be some hardcore Latino. I know is is actually Latino, but I just didn't buy him in that role. His accent would go from plain to just crossed the border in 2 seconds flat.

Don't be afraid of this movie. If you want to watch it, WATCH IT. Don't let negative reviews and comments keep you from it. Will you buy it on DVD? Doubt it. Will you remember it in 6 months? Maybe, but I definitely do not regret spending my time to appease my curiosity of this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

not as good as the first...

Author: agnesvalkay from midlands
5 May 2010

Boondock Saints 2 is not as good as the first one.I'm sorry it isn't.

I love the first movie beyond all reason so number two always had big shoes to fill.

The second movie doesn't begin well with the boys and their unconvincing facial hair and Eunice's introduction. Billy Connolly isn't in it much, which is a shame.

By the second half things look up. I started to warm to Eunice, there's some great one-liners and the final action scene is great. What a climax!

I know I've sounded a bit negative here but the film is still pretty good. I bought the DVD today so I obviously like it.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Not THAT bad

Author: patrickjcareyiii from United States
6 January 2011

I expected much worse having read the reviews. It wasn't awesome but it wasn't terrible either.

I could have done without the mediocre filmography... what's with the old-timey 8mm special effects with some of the flashbacks? There are places in the film where it's totally obvious that this was intended for limited release or direct to disc. Closeups on characters faces where the original would have had a wide angle view instead are a dead giveaway that when this movie was filmed, no one knew whether or not it would make it to the big screen.

I also could have done without half the soundtrack. Some of the music was inserted where it was not necessary or useful to forwarding the story... in some places it took away from the storytelling.

It's also loaded with curses without clever usage... they don't even fit into the story, they were just superfluous and stupid. "We got prison ******... in the ***".

Not necessary and it removes quality from the final product.

All that said I did like this movie more than I thought I would. There are a few aspects that redeem it, in particular those places without background music, and without campy dialogue... where they just focused on the conversation and the story.

This could have been better. Overall, its flaws remind of the old adage 'too many cooks stirring the pot'. But I did like the movie despite it's problems.

Would I buy a copy and watch it over and over again, like I did the original? No. But I watched it on Netflix and it didn't disappoint me with regard to entertainment value. It's worth watching once or twice.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Tries too hard to build on the original cult classic's success

Author: Movie_Muse_Reviews from IL, USA
15 May 2010

It's possible that any sequel ten years in the making would be bound to fall flat. "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" might have been destined to do so from the beginning. The cult following if not worshipping of the original beckoned creator Troy Duffy to bring us the McManus brothers once again, even if the first film suggested future chapters were likely. In terms of story and script, "All Saints Day" neglects most of what made the first film engaging from start to finish. Instead, style dictates the direction of Duffy's sequel and the objective to please die-hard fans, not as much those such as myself who really enjoyed the original's infectious bravado and rhythm and were hoping the sequel would at least provide as much.

I really liked the 1999 film, applauding its signature feel, unique characters and religious undertones to counteract any possible label of yet another slow-mo vigilantes with guns story. I've quoted "there was a firefight!" a good couple of times in the ten years since, but my love of the film only went that far. Only a small portion of me would receive satisfaction just by seeing Connor, Murphy and Il Duce back together again; the second would have to win me over just as much as the first had to.

The set-up is that the boys (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) are hiding out from the law in Ireland with Poppa (Billy Connolly) when they get word that back in Boston, a priest has been murdered and made to look like it was they who did it. That's all the motivation they need to shave their beards, grab their guns and get some revenge. It's a suspect motivation. Their characters are so much weaker in "All Saints Day" as a result. They're less funny and less believable to boot. The first film showed us they were human and simply had the gall to be vigilantes. This time they come across as untouchable. They also quarrel exactly like they did in the previous film and make similar jokes. These don't come across as "comforts" so much as blatant attempts to reap more benefits from the original film's success.

The supporting cast lent so much to the original as well. Clifton Collins Jr. overdoes everything and his character is such a poor man's version of Rocco to begin with. Julie Benz is a horrible attempt at replacing Willem Defoe's FBI agent. Her fake Southern accent is brutal and doesn't rise above stereotype. Defoe provided such a rich and unique character for the film to focus on. Instead, "All Saints Day" tries to rip off its predecessor once again by having Benz's Eunice listen to music when she reconstructs crime scenes too. The homage is given so little attention as is the case with most homages in the film.

I hate harping on why a film wasn't like the first, but "Boondock Saints" painted such a special niche for itself and Duffy tries so incredibly hard to recreate some of that film's success that the criticism is warranted. It starts with the script, however, which wasn't made to be good on its own so much as cater to the cult fan base. Mixing in Il Duce's backstory along with what was already going on was too much, for example. Mainly, however, is that "All Saints Day" lacks a true antagonist. Benz is actually an ally to the twins' cause for much of the film, so no true force keeps them in check. This also renders the slow-motion action sequences devoid of that payoff feeling you got from the first film. Instead, "All Saints Day" is all show and even then the entertainment value doesn't measure up.

~Steven C

Visit my site at

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 19: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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