Boondock Saints 2: All Saints Day

[Art Andrews]

I know I am a little late to the party but I just watched this, having loved the first one... and am I the only one who thought the new version is absolute garbage? They took everything that was hokey in the first one, yet somehow worked and absolutely ruined it. This has got to be some of the worst of Hollywood... way to ruin a good thing. cry

 

[CB2001]

I've seen it, and thought it was just as good as the first film (not better like most Boondock Saints fans say)

 

[MaxPlague]

That's exactly why I can't bring myself to watch this one. Maybe I will someday, but from what I've heard—and now hearing the same from you—I think I'll just let the first one remain untarnished by the second.

 

[Probe Droid]

I liked it enough.

 

[Flachzange]

That's exactly why I can't bring myself to watch this one. Maybe I will someday, but from what I've heard—and now hearing the same from you—I think I'll just let the first one remain untarnished by the second.

This!
I really love the first one, but it seems that nowadays every movie gets a sequel which just sucks horribly.

 

[foxbatkllr]

I liked it...not as much as the first, but it didn't ruin the first one at all.

 

[kalkamel]

The first felt more honest. This one just felt somewhat forced... like they were trying too hard. Plus, what the heck happened to Sean Patrick Flanery's face??

 

[IndyBlues]

The first felt more honest. This one just felt somewhat forced... like they were trying too hard. Plus, what the heck happened to Sean Patrick Flanery's face??

Yeah. his face does look odd. Looks like 10 years of hard living, since the first film. Looks like he had face work done, or an allergic reaction??
Mike

 

[Art Andrews]

The first felt more honest. This one just felt somewhat forced... like they were trying too hard. Plus, what the heck happened to Sean Patrick Flanery's face??

A good assessment and a very good question! I wondered the same thing. At first I was wondering if it was even the same actor!

I hate being one of those people that hate everything or never like the new version, but I really thought the original was extremely clever and did a great job of walking the line between comedy, satire, and action.

One of the things that stood out the most were the supporting characters.

In the original Willem Dafoe was so over the top yet somehow it worked and his performance came off as hilarious yet incredible. For the sequel it feels like they tried to channel Willem through Julie Benz and it came off so cheesy and so poorly. All I could think of was those old HBO movies with Shannon Tweed that were just utterly painful to watch.

The exact same could be said for Clifton Collin's Romeo. He came off as so forced and I swear it seemed that most of his lines were done in ADR. There is a very thin line between a character who comes off as a little nuts, like David Rocco did in the first one and "acting" crazy like Romeo.

I guess for me the first movie came off as near genius, but the second one tries to hard and will only ever be a "wannabe."

 

[CB2001]

The exact same could be said for Clifton Collin's Romeo. He came off as so forced and I swear it seemed that most of his lines were done in ADR.

This doesn't seem so forced to me. :lol

 

[monkeywrench]

My wife and I are huge fans of the 1st film. However, after watching All Saints Day, before the credits had finished rolling, we both took a blood oath never to mention part 2 aloud ever again :lol

 

[Jedi2016]

The reviews are precisely why I haven't seen the second one. I love the first one, and it would be heartbreaking to see it ruined. So I'll just stay in my happy little world where there's only one film.