PDA

View Full Version : Finally: Boondock Saints - All Saints Day (trailer)



Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 12:07 AM
if2-PYxgL50&fmt=22

Let's hope it doesn't suck.

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 12:12 AM
The first one was so godawful it would be almost impossible for the sequel to suck any worse. Of course, I said the same thing about Transformers.

Trainwreck2100
09-04-2009, 12:15 AM
welcome to comic-con

jaffies
09-04-2009, 12:17 AM
Is that Sean Patrick Flanery??? He looks weird, maybe fatter, maybe had some work done?


The first one was so godawful it would be almost impossible for the sequel to suck any worse.

Huh?
How was it awful?

Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 12:25 AM
The first one was so godawful it would be almost impossible for the sequel to suck any worse. Of course, I said the same thing about Transformers.

Not as awful as your FACE.

ohhhh, what now.

CubanSucks
09-04-2009, 12:35 AM
The first one was so godawful it would be almost impossible for the sequel to suck any worse.

??? You say that as if it's a universally shunned movie. You realize you're in the minority right?

Fpoonsie
09-04-2009, 01:32 AM
Judd Nelson? Really?

I'd rather they put Dafoe in drag again.

Jacob1983
09-04-2009, 01:36 AM
Boondock Saints is a cult classic. If you don't like that movie then you're a goat fucker. Yep, I said it.

Fpoonsie
09-04-2009, 01:50 AM
I have a bad feeling that the writers/producers/directors are all-TOO-aware of the aforementioned "cult following", and simply hope that THAT will lead to big numbers at the box office, therefore not caring if they throw a total shit movie out there (a la Indiana Jones 4, Live Free or Die Hard, Rocky Balboa, etc).

In other (though somewhat similar news), this. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1229340/)

Besides, w/o Rocco, this movie'll hardly stand a chance in living up to its predecessor.

leemajors
09-04-2009, 07:57 AM
The first one was so godawful it would be almost impossible for the sequel to suck any worse. Of course, I said the same thing about Transformers.

It did suck. It wasn't even funny suck. I love shitty movies, but this was unbearable. I don't care if I was in the minority. Balls Out was better. That being said, the documentary about the giant douche who made it was wildly entertaining.

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 07:59 AM
??? You say that as if it's a universally shunned movie. You realize you're in the minority right?

Not exactly.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 08:02 AM
That being said, the documentary about the giant douche who made it was wildly entertaining.

Very true, the one positive about Boondock Saints being made is that it led to the making of Overnight.

Kermit
09-04-2009, 09:14 AM
The first one is a stain on the underwear of Richard Simmons. Kung-Pow wanted it's money back after seeing this abortion.

Trainwreck2100
09-04-2009, 09:18 AM
if the ira taught us anything it is that irish people can be hilarious

Spurminator
09-04-2009, 09:25 AM
lol

hfXuNJxWw88

Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 10:52 AM
Not exactly.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/

Ah, movie critics. Because they are unarguably right when they voice an opinion.

Fpoonsie
09-04-2009, 10:55 AM
I had no idea there was such a passionate disdain for this movie. Wow. Most high school/college guys I talk to cream their pants at the mere mention of it, as do I.

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Ah, movie critics. Because they are unarguably right when they voice an opinion.

They hit it on the head with Transformers 2.

Anyways, that wasn't even about whether film critics get it right or not. Someone said I was one of very few who hated that movie. Obviously I'm not.

Kermit
09-04-2009, 11:15 AM
Ah, movie critics. Because they are unarguably right when they voice an opinion.

Most of the time they are right when a movie sucks beyond all comprehension. There is a reason why the film was only in five movie theaters for one week.

Kermit
09-04-2009, 11:25 AM
And I suggest to anyone the documentary Overnnight. When a film about the making of a troubled movie and its douchebag director is significantly better than than that of the actual film it's covering....

Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 11:25 AM
Most of the time they are right when a movie sucks beyond all comprehension. There is a reason why the film was only in five movie theaters for one week.

Really? What about.... the movie Mono just mentioned? Don't kid yourself and think that we only see "good" movies at a worldwide distribution.


They hit it on the head with Transformers 2.

Anyways, that wasn't even about whether film critics get it right or not. Someone said I was one of very few who hated that movie. Obviously I'm not.

I see your point, and I agree. I was really glad to see T2 get completely trashed by critics as it deserved. I saw it with relatively low hopes and I STILL almost walked out of the theater.

I guess I don't understand critics. They gave 300 pretty favorable reviews, spooge all over Quentin Tarantino movies like Inglorious Basterds (which I enjoyed, but to say that movie had a even a moderately deep plot is laughable), but they rip Boondock Saints for making violence look cool? Does that not call a kind of double standard into play? I'm actually asking you, because I would like to know your take on this.

Strike
09-04-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm a fan of the first movie and I'll definitely see the sequel.

Viva Las Espuelas
09-04-2009, 11:59 AM
i remember a friend of mine was totally about this movie. wouldn't shut up about it. i saw it and it sucked. plain and simple. it's basically an irish "blood in blood out". no need to see re-warmed up piss again.

Spurminator
09-04-2009, 12:32 PM
I guess I don't understand critics. They gave 300 pretty favorable reviews, spooge all over Quentin Tarantino movies like Inglorious Basterds (which I enjoyed, but to say that movie had a even a moderately deep plot is laughable), but they rip Boondock Saints for making violence look cool? Does that not call a kind of double standard into play? I'm actually asking you, because I would like to know your take on this.

I can't speak for critics, but for me, the stylization of the violence was so ridiculously over-the-top that it bordered on self-parody, but it wasn't funny enough to qualify for that.

Same with Willem Dafoe. He was just really, really bad. "Mommie Dearest" bad. It was like he was playing a practical joke on the producers.

I'm just surprised that so many people love this movie, and not even in a hipster/ironic sort of way.

Hornets1
09-04-2009, 01:11 PM
Sheer boondock happiness!

New boondock saints movie and new season of The Boondocks coming soon!

Good things......

leemajors
09-04-2009, 01:21 PM
I can't speak for critics, but for me, the stylization of the violence was so ridiculously over-the-top that it bordered on self-parody, but it wasn't funny enough to qualify for that.

Same with Willem Dafoe. He was just really, really bad. "Mommie Dearest" bad. It was like he was playing a practical joke on the producers.

I'm just surprised that so many people love this movie, and not even in a hipster/ironic sort of way.

this.

Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 01:48 PM
I can't speak for critics, but for me, the stylization of the violence was so ridiculously over-the-top that it bordered on self-parody

Again, how does this differ from Fight Club? Inglorious Basterds? 300? Gladiator?

I'm not saying Boondock Saints is better than any of those movies... but why (especially with QT) when violence looks slick, everyone stats that it's the greatest thing ever, and in this case it's a horrific portrayal of death?

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 01:54 PM
I'm not saying Boondock Saints is better than any of those movies... but why (especially with QT) when violence looks slick, everyone stats that it's the greatest thing ever, and in this case it's a horrific portrayal of death?

Nobody is saying that.

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 01:57 PM
And the "stylized violence" in Boondock Saints wasn't even that great. The camera work was so amateurish it made everything look worse. Just because you set a shootout in slow motion with chanting monk music in the background, it doesn't make your violence "slick".

Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 02:45 PM
And the "stylized violence" in Boondock Saints wasn't even that great. The camera work was so amateurish it made everything look worse. Just because you set a shootout in slow motion with chanting monk music in the background, it doesn't make your violence "slick".

But having a couple of guys whip out Tommy Guns and mow down nazi's in slow motion is something that's worthy of SO much praise? Really?

Spurminator
09-04-2009, 03:18 PM
Fight Club's style was fresh. The violence was raw and believable.

I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds.

I thought 300 sucked.

Gladiator was a bit over the top at times, both in terms of score and the violence. Not a favorite of mine.

But all of these movies have something in common that puts them above Saints... No Willem Dafoe making an ass of himself.

Seriously, I can't get over how awful he was.

CubanSucks
09-04-2009, 05:44 PM
Not exactly.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/boondock_saints/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/

Tit for tat bitch. I'll take IMDB anyway.

monosylab1k
09-04-2009, 06:46 PM
But having a couple of guys whip out Tommy Guns and mow down nazi's in slow motion is something that's worthy of SO much praise? Really?

I could cook you a steak, and Gordon Ramsay could cook you a steak. One of them is going to be significantly better than the other one. How the hell is that possible?

JMarkJohns
09-04-2009, 07:00 PM
Whether or not the first flick was good (it was), or whether or not I enjoyed it (I did), this trailer looks like garbage. I can live without the "here we go again" jokes. It's kind of cool that those making the flick aren't taking the film too seriously, but I don't need what looks to be a film with constant comedic references to the original.

And I agree with the poster who said that without Rocco this film will suck. I have a feeling they'll try to hard with this film, and I don't want to tarnish my enjoyment of the first film by watching this one. They didn't need a sequel, let alone one a decade after the original.

Cry Havoc
09-04-2009, 07:39 PM
I could cook you a steak, and Gordon Ramsay could cook you a steak. One of them is going to be significantly better than the other one. How the hell is that possible?

Ah. Shooting people with a gun is analogous to cooking a steak. So gratuitous violence in one movie is abhorrent, in another it's genius. Got it.

Fpoonsie
09-05-2009, 02:22 AM
i thought william dafoe was hilarious in the first one

So did I. I mean, sure, he played his character a bit over the top, but I kinda figured that's what the roll called for. [shrug]

slayermin
09-05-2009, 11:17 PM
The documentary about the making of Boondock Saints is worth watching. But the movie itself is just bad.

It was like watching Desperado without the great editing skills of Robert Rodgriguez. Desperado was at least visually appealing.

It was a jumbled, repetitive story with A-list actors who turned in lousy performances.

Trainwreck2100
09-06-2009, 02:46 AM
i like billy connelly but the involvement of julie benz almost guarantees failure

bostonguy
09-06-2009, 03:04 AM
Overnight was a very good documentary, and I recommend it to anyone who would like to take a close up look of what goes on in Hollywood if you get a movie deal. The director/screenwriter of Saints was a class A prick, and deserved what happened to him, but, the simple fact that he went through all of the Hollywood BS, and 10 years later is coming out with a sequel to his first film says he has what it takes to survive amongst sharks.

Why did the director get black listed exactly? For being a douche to everyone? I still don't fully understand that side of the story.

Sense
09-06-2009, 03:04 AM
http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj117/Gothicnerd5057/ani_bdock-saints_shot-cat.gif