Filed under: Editorials

The Shallow End: When 'The Boondock Saints' Go Marching In…

I Go Marching Out

Without fail St. Patrick's Day always hurls two evils my way: a skull-clogged hangover and some knuckle head struggling to convince me The Boondock Saints is the coolest of the awesomest of like… all things cinema. I don't see an end to either of these problems, especially the latter now that Boondock's writer/direct/super-douche (see the doc Overnight) Troy Duffy announced—on St. Patty's no less—the sequel is filming this summer. Considering Duffy's infamous bridge-burning douchery, I'll believe it when I see it. Scratch that, I won't see it unless bagged, gagged, and dragged to the theater; I have a cyanide tooth just for this situation though.

Let me put it in the simplest of terms. I. Fucking. Hate. The Boondock Saints. And I'll never understand its cult popularity. Never. Never. Never. Ever.

What is it about this movie that submerges the I.Q. of a few intelligent fans (the multitude of mouth breathing admirers* needs no explanation) and persuades them this flick is even remotely watchable? I mean c'mon. The movie props Billy Connelly up as the ultimate badass and it gives us Ron Jeremy without a python shot. That alone is enough to condemn the film's uncovered negative to a humid vault.

As a piece of filmmaking, The Boondock Saints is an abortion in where the patient dies, the doctor gets shot, and the killer commits suicide afterwards. Nothing survives this movie. There isn't a real script here, it's a thudding copy and paste hack job from rejected Quentin Tarantino wannabe scripts but with all wit evaporated and countless scenes existing just because Troy Duffy had "actors", film in the camera, and plenty of smokes and beer on set. Every aspect of The Boondock Saints treads tired, Tarantino derivative territory (well I guess the heroes don't dress in all black…they wear blue jeans!). In fact, it's so goddamn derivative that the word and all its synonyms fail to truly capture my meaning. So I propose "duffy" as a new word to describe something that's derivative of derivative. As in Troy Duffy's duffy direction follows this simple equation: no shots without slow mo + spinning handheld shots – logic + listless pacing – any recognizable technical skill + clunky editing + generic rock + generic, pompous chorale music + being a total douche bag = You gotta be kidding me that people enjoy this ineptitude without irony? Troy Duffy never shot a scene Kevin Smith couldn't pull off better.

I mean, the filmmaking is atrocious at best, which means… is it then the amateur-hour acting pulling the suckers in? Why yes, I savor the parading of Lucky Charms accents, laughable tough-guy posturing, and performances that consist of nothing but screaming variations of "fuck." By the way, I'm from bizarro world where Uwe Boll just won his fifth Oscar. But Davey, what about Willem Dafoe? What about him? Keep the huzzahs for Dafoe to yourself. The poor man embarrasses himself to such a degree it could make Speed 2 look like the defining role on his obit clip reel.

If The Boondock Saints was a Guy Richie just-for-kicks ride, fair enough. My hate would end at the incompetent filmmaking. Yet, what pisses me off the most about the movie is it takes its horseshit vigilante philosophy seriously—well philosophy is probably too weighty of a word. This film is as pretentious as Lars von Trier huffed up on marker fumes and barricaded in a room full of Dirty Harry DVDs and Batman comics. However, there's nothing there, just arbitrary thoughts firing off like random electrical currents in a dying brain. I can't decipher any coherent meaning from the film other than it appears to ask a question on par with an online instant-poll: Is vigilantism good or bad? Wow. Profound. Batman better be paying attention to the results. Sure there's some pseudo-Catholicism wrapped around this vigilante-themed hotdog, but Duffy's sole reasoning behind the religious stuff seems to be that crossing yourself in slow-mo looked awesome(!) and Samuel L. Jackson's bible recitation from Pulp Fiction was an idea worthy of pilfering—how duffy of Troy Duffy.

So when the annual dipshit tries to convert me into the Boondock brigade, I'll break out these issies. And the only response I ever get is "Screw off, the movie was fun!" Yeah, and I bet some people think riding hungry grizzly bears while smeared in bacon juice is fun too. But count me out.

*I want to thank YouTube member weedismylife386 for posting the film and allowing me take a refresher course on its shittiness. I think his/her name says a lot about the fanbase.

Related post categories: Editorials, Features, The Shallow End :

Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

I wholeheartedly agree. As my friend Justin says, "Boondock Saints is terrible and only stoned frat boys from Santa Barbara like it."

- FilmDrunk
( March 19th, 2008 | 12:23 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

I usually agree with just about everything this sight says about movies.In fact i now see most of my movies based on what you guys think is good and i end up loving what i see.But i cant help it,i love the boodock saints,because of how retarded it is.Its sheer primitive entertainment.I still love you guys .

- rockstarsinger
( March 19th, 2008 | 12:57 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

I am with David on this one. I saw this when the new special edition was sent to me and read all the hype for it and couldn't believe how disappointed I was. To me it felt like someone trying to be Guy Ritchie and failing (understandable though, Ritchie even fails at being Guy Ritchie). I was going to do a similar write up when the rumors of a Boondock 2 was out there, but I am glad I didn't… David is so eloquent isn't he? :)

As for rockstarsinger, I can see your point. David is a little more harsh on the lovers of this film, but I can see someone getting into this movie had they not been turned on to it by all the hype. Because, personally, the hype is just way too much considering how bad this movie actually is. Outside of loving it because it is "retarded" I am not sure how anyone could get anything more out of it.

- bradbrevet
( March 19th, 2008 | 2:28 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

Yeah, if someone acknowledges that it's retarded. I'll cut them some slack. If someone loves it an in MST3K sort of way, then I'll completely cut them slack. What people find entertaining or fun is a matter of taste that can't be bolstered with concrete evidence from the film–I hope my last paragraph gave a sense of this. It's really the people I run into who try to persuade that the film is intelligent, well-made, and profound that drive me batshit. And I ain't got time for that mickey mouse bs.

- davidfrank
( March 19th, 2008 | 3:00 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

Ha, yeah, there definitely isn't any intelligence to be found. Neither will you find profound statements and it is far from well-made. Running into folks that love a movie for what it isn't is incredibly frustrating.

- bradbrevet
( March 19th, 2008 | 3:12 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

Being about fifteen minutes outside of Boston, I have to deal with an unbearable amount of people at my school who think BS is one of the best, if not the best, movies ever made. The funny thing is is that they're supposed to be smarter than I am, but they take it absolutely seriously and pretty much seem to think that they're heroes. I always try my best to cut them down and sometimes take on the role of movie snob, but BS seems to have spawned the type of ignorant fan that responds to every point with "Yeah? Well it's just awesome!". I hate BS and the association it has with my beloved Boston.

- domenic padulo
( March 19th, 2008 | 5:54 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

Ok so you don't like it, so it's not a great movie or well made. Some of us find it entertaining and therefore enjoy it. Do you have to whine about it so much? Different people have different opinions, deal with it.
If some people take the movie serious well thats their problem, some people just have trouble distinguishing life from a silly movie.

- RaTTleR_NL
( March 20th, 2008 | 7:58 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #8
Gravatar

Thannks for the response guys.I did see the film way before it was all "omigod its amazazing". A buddy of mine is stationed in kosovo and just sent it to me cause he liked.I still watch it occasionally when me and my friends are having some beers and want to laugh.It really is funnier than it it is dramatic, like Norman Reedus holds his irish accent about as good my grandma holds her bladder,and Willem dafoe Actually dresses up like the ugliest woman on earth for a director who the the only other thing ive heard he was famous for was being a Douche Bag.But i even know people who have coppycatted the tattoos form the two saints.It really is hilarious in many different levels.

- rockstarsinger
( March 24th, 2008 | 7:09 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #9
Gravatar

Sorry if I'm late to this party, but I hated this movie so much that when a post I just read on linked me here ('http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/shallow_end_i_like_it_you_dont_like_it_so_youre_an_idiot_right/'), I had to chime in.

I consider myself somewhat of a movie afficionado. I review films part time, watch a lot of them, and I can honestly say that this is among the worst movies I have ever seen. No matter what aspect your looking at, be it directorial, acting, writing, sound, or hell, even lighting this movie is a real shitster.

I agree with the whole 'I like it, you don't' bit, but in this case fans of this film should be banned from watching movies ever again.

- raistlinsghost
( June 4th, 2008 | 12:49 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #10
Gravatar

@raistlinsghost: I love boondock saints

- Slowen
( December 16th, 2008 | 1:21 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #11
Gravatar

I think what surprises me is that this movie is being evaluated against more serious movies. So it shouldn't win an Academy Award. It shouldn't even be compared to those movies, because they are made for a totally different purpose. Now I haven't meet the director, Duffy, to find out how seriously he takes this movie, but it seemed kind of like a purposely "poorly" done film. The acting isn't great, but it makes it seem real, like you could see yourself in that situation rather than it being some really talented actor. And it's your buddy that filmed it to tell the story, which makes it more fun. And there are the crazy character's like Rocco, that everyone has in their friend group that make life crazy. And if you imagined yourself in the movie, the fights would be slow motion, so slow motion is perfect. So what I'm saying is if you take the movie seriously, it sucks, but if you imagine telling your friends some crazy story as a film, it would look like the Boondock Saints.

- jon
( March 22nd, 2009 | 1:03 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #12
Gravatar

Troy Duffy is a professional asshole, who punched mr. Frank in the cock. His movie still rocks though. And it sounds like you are a real whining cry baby about it. Perhaps mr. Duffy should punch you in the cock again. Maybe on a daily basis. Then at least, you'd have a reason to be such a miserable bastard.

- Eric
( April 13th, 2009 | 8:08 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #13
Gravatar

When I watched this movie, I watched it with extremely high expectations, because most all of my friends have seen it, and think it is the best movie in the world. I must say…while it wasn't as absolutley HORRIBLE as some people make it seem, it was no-where near worth the praise that it gets. I mean, some of the parts that are supposed to be dramatic or serious are just so ridicously stupid and funny, that that alone makes the movie worth watrching.

To me, it lacks storyline, and what storyline it does have is just so generic and has been done so so so so many times. I mean…you have 2 "B.A.M.F.'s" that run around shooting people, and that it really it. They have no deterimation to kill these people or anything, they just wake up one morning deciding "Hey! Let's go kill some mob members today!" Oh well I guess people just have different tastes in movies…I'd give it a 4/10.

- DJ
( May 9th, 2009 | 7:33 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #14
Gravatar

I've watched the film a few times and i love it. I don't know if Troy Duffy slept with your woman or something but after reading the 'article' there doesn't even seem to be any valid arguments made against the film itself. Its just a few lame paragraphs badmouthing bits of the movie.
"it gives us Ron Jeremy without a python shot. That alone is enough to condemn the film’s uncovered negative to a humid vault". Seriously? You're upset because Ron Jeremy didn't get his pecker out? The guy had 3 short lines in the entire movie. It wasn't even worth mentioning him in the 'review' but somehow you did.
Also, "being a total douchebag" isn't a valid point for someone to make in a film review. If other reviewers did the same then a hell of a lot of films would have been passed over. From what I've heard Chris Nolans a douche but that doesn't fucking matter because he's a damned good director.
If you can do a better job go out there and make a fucking movie (maybe you'll be able to get Ron Jeremy to get his shlong out for you if you're still desperate for that to happen). Otherwise STFU or GTFO.

- O'Reely
( May 26th, 2009 | 4:28 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #15
Gravatar

I so understand, in last paragraph just whole salt and is stated

- RedMoul
( May 27th, 2009 | 3:39 pm )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ~ Trailer
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!