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 8 of 19: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 188 reviews in total 

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Remember the first one wasn't that one good enough

Author: lickj-1 ( from Canada
2 April 2010

Boondocks Saints return only to prove once and for all (hopefully) that not every cult classic needs a sequel. I like many enjoyed the first movie as it was a great blend of stylish action, cool characters, and dark comedy. The first film was the movie your friend, co worker, or roommate that swore you had to watch because it was so awesome and made you sit and watch the DVD with him/her even if they watched it the night before. The sequel is like that boring kid you went to school with that you didn't pay much attention to until he tried to be funny only to make an ass out of himself.

I heard Boondock Saints 2 was bad before watching from more than one person. The thing that surprised me about the movie was it wasn't filled with stupid moments that you just loved to hate and make fun of but rather the fact that it was just really boring. Almost all the original cast comes back and that would usually be considered a plus but the dialogue and interaction between each other just seams botched. The movies humour either will make you shake your head in disgust or just tries to reuse the jokes that worked in the first only to a lesser degree.

As for the action, this movie is a one trick pony. The gun fight fights feel more like a knock off of the first rather than an evolution. The story is nothing that the genre hasn't seen before and its easy to miss plot points due to the fact the mind will wonder off or stop paying attention.

To the films credit it didn't ruin the mood like bad movies often do and i am no objective to seeing another instalment but i wont get into any line to go see it. In the end i consider it more a miss step than a mistake. The director cant hold onto this as a crowning achievement like the first. 5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Better than a sleeping pill

Author: Bill Jordan from Pennsylvania
11 April 2010

I'm not sure how this movie rates a 6.something when most of the reviews here are negative (or at least the later ones are). Anyway, count me among those who fell asleep watching it. From the ridiculous-looking beards in the beginning, to the point about 20 minutes in where I could't take it anymore, this movie was just pitiful. I was pleasantly surprised by the first one, and this one tried to pick up where that one left off, but it wasn't nearly as clever, funny, original, or interesting. I didn't even crack a grin during the 20 minutes I watched. I guess it's tough to get that magic back when you have an unexpected hit. Probably shouldn't even try. Anyway, believe what you see in the negative reviews here. If you suffer through it yourself, rent from a Redbox or Blockbuster kiosk, and waste only a buck. Trust me, it will definitely prove to be a waste, but it won't change your standard of living at least.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Wait, what about All Saints Day?

Author: Jacob Robertson from Texas, United States
8 April 2010

Oh I guess it was meant as a pun, since it had no significant meaning in the movie. Though, this did not dwindle the score in any way that matters. Before I bash a movie that I looked so forward to seeing, let me say, I am a huge Boondock Saints fan. I was in the fan club, had special edition DVDs, and a P-Coat, which I got specifically because of the movie. So I thought my devotion to the first movie and Troy Duffy would be strong enough for me to never speak ill of the sequel, no matter how bad. I was wrong. The second movie made a mockery of the "symbology" from the first. Duffy took an embarrassing route with the sequel. I could understand all the actors being aged and looking a bit older, being 10+ years later(forgive me if I am wrong), but their acting definitely did not age the same as wine.

Expect Sean Patrick Flannery to give a sub-par performance. There were multiple times where he would yell and cuss and you could tell it was uncomfortably forced, fake, or/and awkward. Norman Reedus' performance wasn't too agonizing, although his facial expressions were still horrid. You might think I am being too harsh on such a technical subject, but when I see an actor crying, I want to believe he is crying. Not laughing. As for the 3 detectives, I am trying to forget them as I type, but I guess I have to include them somewhere in this review. Duffy decided to made them far dumber than the first. I mean borderline retardation. It was insulting seeing them drooling over a female, arguing over redundant topics, and being flat-out bad at their job. Their performance as detectives was far unbelievable, even for a movie. As for the new actress(didn't bother to remember her name) that portrayed the special agent replacing Smecker, don't expect to be impressed. Her role was juvenile and unnecessary. I was enjoying how sassy and sarcastic she was, until they fed those characteristics to me the whole movie. She never gives you a break, it is quite annoying. And for the "Mexican" who replaces Rocco. Well let's just say he was better off not included, or given a way better script. His script seemed like it was created by a 10 year old with anger problems and an obsessed fascination with the "F" bomb. I mean, I know its Boston, but it was probably the most unrealistic dialogue in the whole movie. As far as the plot goes, I guess it was alright. It tied in some backstories and added some new ones. There were moments in the plot that were almost unbearable. Like when they jumped down 40+ stories(once again forgive me if I am wrong, but it was a LONG way down) with the infamous rope to land into a hotel room from the window. Oh how embarrassing it was to watch, as a fan to the original, a serious movie turn into a joke.

As bad as this movie was, I had to watch it. I think everyone that liked the first one should watch it for what little information you can gain from the back-stories included in the plot. I loved the first movie, I felt that it stood for something but I guess it was just a beautiful accident. I am going to pretend the sequel was never made.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

God awful sequel

Author: hot_action_ninja from United States
8 April 2010

As someone who enjoyed the first Boondock Saints (I don't praise it up and down like most, but I recognise it as a well made film) I thought that the sequel was terrible. First off, the use of the words "retarded" and "gay". Now I'm not the type to spout off about political correctness and what have you, but those words just felt totally inappropriate in this. It's fine when they are used in good taste and humor, kind of like how Tropic Thunder handled it, but in here they are just used as petty insults and it came off as amateur writing on Duffy's part. His inexperience definitely shines through in that department.

Next, and what I thought was particularly well done in the first Boondock Saints, was the crime scene investigations. In BDS2, they just felt awkward and out of place. I haven't seen much of Julie Benz's work, but strictly going off of this, she is a terrible actress, and lacks all of the charm that Willem Dafoe brought. In the first BDS, the CSI scenes were cleverly done, showing Dafoe go through the motions of the killers, and brilliantly showing his character's expertise, but he also showed imperfection (mistaking there being 4 killers instead of 1 Poppa for example).

In BDS2 the CSI scenes involved completely pointless fluff, like Benz in a cowboy outfit, shooting at nothing while explaining what happened. It made no sense and just came off as stupid. The scene where she was walking between the gunmen pointing her fingers and trying to look sexy was equally pointless and stupid. That's not even how the gun fight went down so why would they show it like that?

Lastly, the jokes just were not clever at all. The only joke that I thought was particularly clever was a scene involving a plan with a forklift going horribly wrong. The Mexican and gay jokes could not be any more unfunny. At times I felt like I was watching a recent direct to DVD National Lampoons movie. The film as a whole just seemed incredibly poorly written and juvenile. I was dumbfounded by the drop in quality from the first film.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

A movie for fans looking to be immensely disappointed

Author: DonFishies from Canada
28 March 2010

I sought out The Boondock Saints many years ago based on its cult status, and thoroughly enjoyed it for having no shame in what it was: a ridiculously over-the-top action flick packed with excessive violence and near demented humour. The writing was never meant to win awards, but the style and fun of the film was too overbearing to not enjoy. The film set up for a sequel, and years went by with rumours that it would actually come together, despite the documented attitude of writer/director Troy Duffy. And as we know now, The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day finally was made. But ten years seems to have done a number on any expectations for the film.

Picking up some time after the titular saints Conner and Murphy McManus (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus) went into hiding with their father, the infamous assassin Il Duce (Billy Connolly), the brothers are called back to Boston after a priest is brutally murdered in the same way they killed gangsters years before. When they do return, with new friend Romeo (Clifton Collins Jr.), they quickly realize they are only part of a much bigger plan.

It is agonizing to say it, based on my love for the original film, but The Boondock Saints II is just plain awful. I have seen many bad sequels and many near unspeakable sequels, and this film falls somewhere in the middle. Mere seconds after a horrendous opening monologue from the previously deceased Rocco (David Della Rocco), I knew I was not going to be in for a great film. It sets up near perfectly what will come over the next two hours, telling people who hated the first film that they will hate this film even more and fans of the first film that they should tread very carefully before watching anymore of this film.

It just feels stale right out of the start gate. All the humour that made the first film so great is still here, but it is amped up to absurd lengths. The majority of laughs here either feel forced, or only come because the movie plays them off so badly. Early in the film, Special Agent Eunice Bloom (Julie Benz) enters the picture and proceeds to tell someone that "I'm so f--king smart, I make smart people feel retarded." Really Duffy, this is the best dialogue you could come up with to introduce us to one of the most pivotal characters in the film? After ten long years, this is the best you could come up with to make people even attempt to think this film will not be an awful experiment in seeing how long it will take the audience before they run away screaming in fear of how outrageously appalling this film is? Out of respect for the fans who will watch the movie in its entirety, I can only tell you the dialogue gets worse from there.

The often ludicrous dialogue is only part of the problem however. The film plays off more like a cartoony parody of The Boondock Saints, not an actual sequel. With the exception of a series of flashback scenes ala The Godfather Part II (and to scenes from the first film, done in a stylish black and white tone), the film plays out almost beat for beat the same way the original film does, but is packed with far too much self-reference. Yes, I enjoyed the bit where they argue about the rope, but some of the other redone material just feels like Duffy was throwing it in for fans to get, and no one else to. And in following it beat for beat, so too does the silly and rather blatant homoeroticism and death sequences. Hell, they even have new characters introduced here solely to replace characters that either died in the first film, or died in the interim between films. I think the only thing the movie has going for it that is any different than the original film are the flashbacks, a rather inane reference to grindhouse films and the recurring bits involving Rocco.

Acting wise, things are still disappointing. Flanery and Reedus are great as the two brothers, and still retain their titles of being the most violent religious bad asses around. But they take a back seat to many of the characters here, and almost feel like secondary characters in some cases. The emphasis on Connolly's Il Duce is interesting, and some of his backstory is not too bad either. But it feels like he is standing in the way of the titular characters really taking off and making something of themselves in the movie. Benz is gorgeous throughout, but is a terrible replacement for Willem Dafoe. Colins Jr. gets a few amusing moments, but he is a poor replacement for Rocco. But the change in spirit and tone between the films is no more evident than in the Boston detectives played by Bob Marley, Brian Mahoney and David Ferry, who's amped up screen time is almost totally unneeded.

I loathe the very core of The Boondock Saints II, but it is abundantly clear that the film was made for fans only. If the self-reference to the first film was not enough, there are more than a handful of characters that reprise their roles from the first film as well. In that respect, I can say that fans may get a kick out of the people who show up or some of the things that happen. And the frame of the story is not half bad either. But the execution of the film and the backburning of the titular brothers are almost unforgivable. Ten long years after the first film became an underground cult sensation, and this was the best they could offer up to the fans. I suppose it is better than nothing, but not by much.


(Portions of this review originally appeared on

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:


Author: brandon_lee420 from 21 Stalker St, Pedo Way
3 April 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Boondock Saints was one of the best action films I had ever seen in a long time. It had a great score, great action, awesome story, and a great cast all worthy of praise. But then Troy Duffy decided to make a massive action-packed sequel called The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day which he thought would be better than its predecessor. And no it was not a good sequel! I had high hopes for this film even before it hit the cinemas since the first one was a eye-popping experience that still lives with me everyday. When it did open in cinemas all over Australia, I decided to check out some reviews and when I mean that, I went over to Roger Ebert's review website since he is the biggest critic EVER. He surprisingly gave the film a bad review and gave it a score of 0.5. I was dumbfounded at that and decided that as soon as this film came out on DVD it will be mine. And within a couple of months I obtained this so called action-movie. From the first moment when the film started I had bad feelings about it. Thirty seconds later it got minute later it got worser...and it was then that I realized that the credits were on. A big Oops! When the film started all my bad feelings went away as you saw the "Saints" with beards and long hair then, out of nowhere, my good vibes turned into bad ones. A sexy but a fake special agent with a stupid accent walked in. Her acting is horrible and her body is nothing more than a sex symbol. She tried to be Paul Smecker in the previous Boondock Saints film who was played by Willem Defoe, but inevitably was unsuccessful due to her limited skills in acting. The thing that I hate about this film is that it was less funny than the previous one and when it did try to be funny it was "hahha" for two seconds and then it vanished from your memory. The other one was "hahahhahahahahaha.....hahahahahahhahaha" for at least 20 minutes and stays in your memory. The predecessor had a ton more action due to the fact that it was rated R18+ but this film felt like it didn't even try to feed the action-hungry fans and at the end of the movie I took out the disk and inserted Casino Royale. That's how dumb it was. The acting from Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus is still fantastic and I hope it remains like that. They work well together and even better with Billy Connolly because it really creates the feeling that the three of them will stop at nothing to get what they want. It is hard to express but I am sure that you understand what I am talking about. Since I have ticked the spoiler box I will tell you about the surprise at the end. Paul Smecker....oh my god(!?)....makes a cameo visit and if it wasn't for him the film would have gotten,,lets say, a two or one star from me. It was important that he makes a special appearance in this film because then the film would have not been a complete waste of time. My consensus about this film contains these words: annoying, disappointing, queer, and unfunny. To put it together it would make something like this: (p.s. quote) "A disappointing film that is annoying whenever the queer Mexican comes up on stage with his unfunny coolness routine". Story is a whole other thing that makes the film bad because the story is one big stupid cliché that has been used by directors at least.... a thousand times. Please pardon me, I exaggerated on that number. Two thousand would be more like it. Julie Ben is the girl with the retarded accent that I mentioned earlier and she by far beats everyone in the mentally challenged race. Be sure to remind her to collect her medal later.

When their beloved priest is killed by someone pretending to be them, the two brothers Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) come out of hiding from their dads sheep farm and go back to Boston so they can unleash hell for whoever is responsible. They eventually get themselves into a bigger mess which turns from small to atom-sized. The road for them will be hard and a whole lot of enemies will stop them but they, predictably, win anyway. Just when things are going bad, their father (Billy Connolly), past catches up with him as he tries to take revenge from an old friend who put him in prison for twenty-five years. Then things start going a little bit better.

The action is not good nor is it bad but somewhere in between. The scene between the pretender and Billy Connolly has to be the best action scene out of the whole film because it gets so tense as they see who will get shot in the head first. Russian Roulette is what they are playing. The worst action scene has to be is when they are in the crate about kill a whole mob of mobsters. In most action scenes the sound is quite but eerie and the film would have been a lot better without that. The best surprise has to be Paul Smecker and his plan to get the boys out of jail. If a third film comes out...fu*k it...I am not going t bother to even try to watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Well, this is just bad.

Author: innocuous from Raleigh, NC, USA
10 March 2010

I guess that Troy Duffy just ran out of ideas. The only way to explain the existence of this movie is to credit the audience with wanting to see a car crash. There are no new ideas and nothing to differentiate it from the first movie (also written and directed by Duffy). There was apparently a bit more money for special FX, but that's just about it. No progress whatsoever.

There are several aspects to this movie that I just plain don't like, but I'm not even going to bother with them here. If you liked the first movie (which I fact, I own a couple copies) then you're going to be disappointed in this sequel. You'll have seen it all before.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 20 people found the following review useful: sucks.

Author: bssux01 from United States
20 March 2010

My expectations were low going into this film but I recall liking a single element of the first film enough to see if the director had come up with anything else clever in the 10 years since the first film. (I originally like the element where Willem Dafoe's character appeared in the actions scenes as we saw them in flashback)

No surprises at all in the film. Much like the first film, I don't think it's going to have much appeal to anyone not in their teens or even pre-teens. The dialogue is terrible. Either the writer is deluded and thinks he's witty or simply doesn't care. To call many of the lines "cliches" would be an insult to the word since they were much more pathetic than a standard cliché.

The actions scenes were dreadful. It seems the only creative input the director has when it comes to directing action is slow-motion. Yes, every actions scene is a series of slo-mo shots which kill the pacing. Anyone who knows film knows slow motion is a tool used judiciously for impact. Even John Woo, who probably uses more slo-mo than any A-list director, knows it's used as a tool in an action scene, not the only element in a scene.

Like the first one, the characters, with the exception of Willem Defoe, are bad. They're corny (in a bad way), stupid or just not interesting. I can only assume Clifton Collins was running short on rent to take this role as he had some of the worst character moments in the film.

Let's hope it's at least another 10 years before this director gives it another go. Maybe he'll learn something about film in that time.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Their Sidekick was Ronnie Dobbs?

Author: alistair_deacon-1 from United States
27 March 2010

I think the brothers' sidekick was Ronnie Dobbs. What more do you need to know? This movie is a joke.

It makes you wonder how ass backwards lucky this director (Troy Duffy) must have been for the first screenplay+film to actually turn out good. It's one of those big mysteries of life when these things happen, like everyone is capable of producing a little bit of interesting stuff, if all the stars align perfectly then someone with little or no talent can hit on that little bit of interesting about 1000 times in a row and produce something really awesome in spite of himself or herself. Sort of like hitting your number at roulette ten times in a row. That's my working theory as far as The Boondock Saints goes, because this movie is so damn bad, it's like a made for TV action movie that wasn't good enough for TV and just got shelved and replaced by Sabrina The Teenage Witch reruns because the station didn't want to embarrass itself.

I would only recommend this Boondock Saints II to people if I didn't want them to ask me for movie recommendations anymore.

p.s. IMDb kiss my ass.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Go watch the first movie again instead.

Author: tcnick from United States
18 March 2010

Many of the other reviewers have said it better than I could already, so I won't belabor the point. I will say that I'm pretty lazy, but I actually went through the trouble to register at IMDb in order to review this movie and save some people from seeing it and tarnishing the glory that was Boondock Saints.

This sequel was a horribly written, terribly acted, awfully edited, and painfully scored disgrace to one of my favorite movies. I don't know how anyone has reviewed it positively. Even as a stand alone, without regard to the first movie, it is just poorly done overall. Disjointed, overacted, and a complete lack of originality barely scratches the surface as to what was wrong with this movie. I would recommend they change the title to something reminiscent of the Wayans brother's spoofer films. I'd rather watch one of those--at least I would know what I was getting into.

I spent one dollar on the rental, and I feel ripped off. My only consolation is that I can go home and watch the first one and hope to forget this sequel exists. Don't let your curiosity lure you into watching this.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 19: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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