Netti Comments:
This film feels like the dying exhalation of the beast that was the ‘Pulp Fiction’ copy cat. This movie was not good. Actually it was terrible. The chief benefit of its inadequacies was that it was an experience that could not be ignored. Some of the dialogue, acting, directing (I would say mostly the directing) was exquisitely painful. I was ready and excited to see something that I hadn't seen but that deflated in the first scenes at the meat packing plant. The editing in that scene was so abrupt I wonder how little viable material was available for cutting. It gets worse from there. I could go on but I'm sure there are plenty of reviews on the web that would do a better job of eviscerating this derivative, derivative effort.
Sorry Brandon, digged ‘Sorcerer’ though I wasn't there. ‘The Boondock Saints’ however, doesn't pass the laugh test. As a pick I appreciated the chance you took showing a film that had been missed by many. However, in this case I would say for good reason.
Nubs Comments:
When Wiener announced his pick was up for grabs I pushed hard for Wildcard to be our official 6th man and knew he would be ready with his sophomore pick. The rest of the Crew agreed and Brandon typed out his preamble. This preamble reflected some regret for ‘Sorcerer’ and a need to make good. I think this was achieved with ‘The Boondock Saints.’
Other than Slim, I was the only member in the Back Yard who had seen this gem before. Tooda had shown it to me years before, and I knew Tooda was considering it for the Stucco as one of his multiple audibles. I remember enjoying the pick then, and back in the pre-Columbine era who wouldn’t like a bunch of vigilantes shooting the shit out of “bad” people in ultra-stylish ways? For the rest of the first time viewers in assembly this Wednesday, the response seemed favorable. I’m fairly sure that Wiener and Coolbaugh considered it a Slam-Dunk but, like JaJa, they think freedom of speech should be left to the men. As usual, I think a happy majority in the Back Yard combined with a very fun movie adds up to a successful pick.
Also as usual, I have a big “but.” I hate to be the constant Ebert to the majority’s Siskel but I gotta have more story! Just like my first sexual experiences, ‘The Boondock Saints’ was a lot of innocent, sloppy fun the first time around and then the second time around still sloppy, but a little rushed and kind of a let down. And in another ‘Boondock Saints’ coincidence, that chick had a dick under her tight black dress. Anyway, in this viewing, even knowing where it was going, I was very confused. The nature of their mission was a mess, and I could find no rhyme or reason for the subjective selection of their “bad” targets. Equally messy were the religious connections which seemed more “cool” than substantive. Further, I still couldn’t understand how the father plays into the narrative other than to set up a sequel which Slim told us is forthcoming. Finally, as much as I hailed Willem Dafoe’s performance and bravery, the director allows his character to become a joke by the end.
Well, there it is, my usual praise for a good pick marked by tons of criticism. I really do believe it is a fine pick for a Wednesday. I believe Brandon did right by us on his sophomore pick and look forward to the next time he is called up from the bench.
SELECTOR Comments:
“We're sorta like 7-11. We're not always doin' business, but we're always open.”
There is not one damn thing that I can say negatively about ‘The Boondock Saints.’ It is a movie for guys who like movies. It has a great cast, a great story, a great setting, great dialogue, and is chock full of great filmmaking. It is an action-oriented film with many of the same “reality” flaws as most others, but with this particular film I am willing to set aside these reality-blemishes because everything else within it works so well.
Out of my handful of months watching movies on the Stucco, never have I seen a MovieNight Crew so enthralled with a film like I saw with ‘The Boondock Saints.’ Never before have I seen a group of people laugh one second, and then wince away when a finger gets blown off in a firefight the next second. Sure, I am probably impartial since this film was my Selection, but I strongly believe this to be the kind of movie that will be hard to follow. The characters have been finely constructed, and the actors playing these parts went above and beyond what was required of them. Especially Willem Dafoe. Dafoe is an established actor with a resume of commercial and artistic hits under his belt, and for him to take a huge pay cut AND play a gay FBI agent AND dress in drag (while looking kinda sexy, in a whore-type of way) AND actually kiss another man with plenty of tongue action…that, to me, is an actor’s actor!
I have read many external reviews of this film online, and each reviewer says the same thing: “This is an awesome film, but there will always be one film snob with a degree in cinema who will chew it apart simply because they didn’t make it first.” I think we can safely assume that we will have this same type of response in the published MovieNight reviews…but who will be our token “film snob”?
The only bad thing that I can say about the February 7th MovieNight gala event, other than Tooda not being there to witness my sophomore pick, was the LOUD bag of potato chips, which was repeatedly passed around, creating a symphony of crackling, rustling, ear-splitting, dream-killing, reality-chewing, heart-breaking sounds every 30 seconds. Perhaps a large, quiet plastic bowl for the next Doritos malady?
_110_Minutes_files/shapeimage_4_link_0.png)