The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)

How to go wrong with a sequel:

1. Use the same storyline and premise and fail to build any new conflict.

2. Use all the same cinema techniques and add louder music.

3. Get the same cast but tell them to overact and look ridiculous.

4. Only spend five minutes writing your screenplay.

This movie is a joke. Troy Duffy obviously felt that he needed to cash in on his cult success with the first movie. There was no character development. The plot was only mildly different and the characters acted as if their IQ's had dropped forty points between movies. Horrible writing!! You shouldn't put a decade between ideas!

The original Boondock Saints had a gritty feel to it. The moments of comedy were never campy or corny, but actually a bit morbid. In this waste-of-money-called-a-sequel, there is no dark edge. The characters are lacking depth and conviction; it feels as if the cast is simply going through the motions. The story is not cohesive and the plot just plain fails to hold up. The only things that keep interest, are the flashback back-story sequences about the father.

Do not waste your time or money!

Fmovies: WOW! I absolutely loved the original. This one is so bad, I almost hate the first movie. Seriously awful. It's full of terrible acting performances from actors who put in a good turn first time around. I hate when a character knows what's quirky about themselves. I can't believe in them when everyone appears as though they know they're in a movie and are IN on the joke. They're not supposed to be, only the audience is. The movie is filled with forced references to what came off in the first film as spontaneous but simply now fall flat. Reedus and Flanery are slumming here. Also slumming is Julie Benz who is basically playing Kyra Sedgwick as The Closer (2005 TV Series). I understand the draw to be in this film, knowing the cult following of the original but this was a big mistake for everyone involved from top to bottom. I don't want to blame the actors totally, there's hardly a good performance to be seen, but with what they had to work with, good lord.

I wanted to love this so bad. I even lowered my expectations in order to have a buffer to allow me to think it was better than expected. Impossible. Boondock Saints one was lightning in a bottle. Perhaps even a fluke. Sure, I saw "Overnight" and bore witness to the train wreck that was Troy Duffy but I always felt saddened by the fact that the original movie showed that he actually had talent and that his demise meant never seeing what he could do if given all of the right ingredients to make more films. If they are anything like this one, I would say that BS1 was indeed a fluke not to be repeated. Furthermore, it makes me wonder if he actually directed BS1.

Unless your character's are Ferris Bueller, they shouldn't be so self aware. It takes them and your audience out of the movie. We need to discover the path WITH our heroes, not have it all drawn out like Wyle E. Coyote's moronic designs. Repeatedly in this film a character will say something and, as the audience member you think, "I knew he was going to say that. And I wish he hadn't"

By the way, I sure wish Judd Nelson would could land some major films. Given the right script and director, we could get some great performances out of him. Right when he seemed to be channeling Pacino, he was derailed with asinine dialog injected to sound witty , profound or even just profane but landed like a thud. I hearken back to Saints 1 where Carlo Rota as Yakavetta is yelling at someone on the phone as he gets his sandwich. That exchange is confusing and out of contexts but feels so real. It was either his brilliant acting or a combination of that, script and direction. That movie was filled with that brilliance. BSII had NONE of it. I'd say the best part of this movie is the tease we get of Rocco and his voice over at the opening of the film. The rest goes downhill so fast it's almost a free fall.

I will forever try to forget that this movie exists so I can still enjoy the raw energy and relentless pace of the first film. This movie is the second Boondock Saints film, yes, that's right, it's NUMBER TWO!

This movie definitely let me down. It wasn't taken seriously, even by the actors. I'm sure it was very fun to make and I might have even enjoyed it a little bit if I didn't know the original existed. Granted, the first is a very hard act to follow, but it could have been much better. The first half of the movie I wanted to walk out, though the second was somewhat redeeming it just wasn't enough. I think Troy Duffy should give me my money back and start making music again. He had a brilliant idea with the first one and got very lucky making it so good, the second it is clear he was just having a good time with the cast and basking in the nostalgia of the first. I'm sorry, but this movie just isn't good.

The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day fmovies. This whole movie feels forced, it is as though one of 'the saints' put a gun to the creators head and demanded a sequel.

The only people who are going to watch this are those who liked the original (which was a great niche action movie 8/10 stars). BSII fails to love up to the original in every way; interesting & entertaining characters are replaced with cheap & annoying ones; old gimmicks are simply rehashed; the leads look old & tired; recurring characters look lost & bewildered; and where the original BS story was simple, tight, & original, BS2's plot is overcomplicated and contrived.

There are some thrills and spills to be had in BSII, but it is difficult to watch something fall so far short from the quality of the original.

On the Fruit-Meter, BSII gets the "SULTANA (or RAISEN)' – The original grape was fresh and juicy, the sequel has lost all the original zesty flavours and has too many wrinkles.

Being a huge fan of the first film, it's kind of difficult to admit this, but The Boondock Saints: All Saints Day just fell short.

The major flaw with the original was that it was a Tarantino-esquire action spoof that was attempting to be serious. Complete with over the top shootout scenes, campy dialog, and insanely unrealistic situations, whether the creators knew it or not, the original Boondock Saints was never meant to be taken seriously. It was just a fun movie.

Anyway, about 15 minutes into this film, it seems as though Troy Duffy had realized this and decided to embrace what the first film should have always been: an entertaining, over-the-top, shoot 'em up flick.

Enter Julie Benz and the three detectives.

See, what made the three detectives from the first Saints funny was not the dimwitted, slapstick gimmick they had in this film, it was Willem Dafoe. It wasn't that they were THAT dumb, it was that Smecker was THAT good. The weird guy was better than the average joes could have ever dreamed to be, and laughs ensued.

In Boondocks 2, you have three actors who are trying way too damn hard to be funny, followed by Julie Benz trying to play a female Paul Smecker. These characters worked in the first film because they actually had a decent performance to play off of.

Don't get me wrong, Julie Benz is great on Dexter, but she was just god awful in this movie. They might as well have tried to pass off that Smecker had a sex change, and that he and Bloom were the same person. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but in this case, it was probably an insult. Also, the Southern Accent was just atrocious.

Aside from that, this film seemed to have expanded on what the original should have always been. There was more laughs, more action, and more blatantly forced accents. Hell, even the obvious replacement for Rocco wasn't half bad.

Dump every scene with Bloom, Greenly, Duffy, and Dolly, and you have yourself a sequel that nearly matches the original.

However, they were still in the movie, and they ruined it every time they were on screen.

5/10

Being a fan of the Saints for years I went into this movie with high expectations and a good amount of personal excitement. Unfortunately, this movie fell way below the standards set by the first installment, for these reasons:

.paper thin plot = very generic, the kind of thing you come up with in five minutes of stereotypical mob brainstorming.

.Dumbed down = Where the first movie succeeded in being witty and fun the second can only survive off of gay jokes and three stooges antics.

.Copying = It seemed like every single well known moment in the first movie was copy and pasted into this movie with the exact same outcome every time. Like they couldn't of anything else to do with them but what they already did.

.Dependent = This movie depended Way too heavily on the first being the underground classic it was. It just tries so hard to be the same bad-ass movie that all the shootout scenes are in slomo and last 25-30 min apiece.

Troy Duffy had his chance to make a movie again and in my opinion all he did was plagiarize himself. Though at times it was funny, the few and far between moments were not enough to save what should have been a continuation of a vigilante cult classic that survived despite the odds. What we get instead is Troy Duffy's homage to himself and a movie that never should have been made.