Topic: Boondock Saints...2? (Read 12186 times)

Aurjay · « **on:** 11 Oct 2009, 07:32 »

Yeah its actually coming out. I liked the 1st one..a lot, but i never got why people are fanatical over it(seriously know a guy with a Veritias Aequitas tattoo). The trailer for the 2nd one looks awful but sadly i will see it just to see if it lives up to the undeserved hype of the 1st one.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 Oct 2009, 09:56 »

... how exactly can it live up to undeserved hype?

Aurjay · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 Oct 2009, 12:22 »

The 1st one was and still is hyped to be one of the best movies of all time. I think it is undeserved. Yes it was a good movie but seriously Hot Topic still sells shirts and people are still getting quotes from the movie as tattoos. I dont think it deserved that much hype or even came close to it. The 2nd one looks awful but im sure it will be hyped as well cuz hey its seems to be trendy. Im almost sure the only reason the 2nd one got made is because of all the hype the 1st seems to be generating some 10years later.

KvP · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Oct 2009, 13:26 »

It's been in development hell for a long, long time. Since I got out of high school, at least. I knew a guy at my community college who was doing makeup for the film. Had official BSII merch and photos of him working and everything. Overnight should be required viewing for people looking to get into the movie business on how not to go about it.

The original is basically an overheated pastiche of De Palma and Tarantino, particularly Tarantino (who was in a slump after the perceived misstep of Jackie Brown). It's probably the worst film currently possessing a cult. Not worst as in bad, but worst as in not deserving.

Johnny C · « **Reply #4 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 16:12 »

It was a really fun action movie that has seen a backlash in recent years cause of a fan culture that thinks it was a serious movie. Doesn't need a sequel so it can stay in development hell for all I care.

Dazed · « **Reply #5 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 16:39 »

Quote from: KvP on 11 Oct 2009, 13:26

It's probably the worst film currently possessing a cult. Not worst as in bad, but worst as in not deserving.

Donnie Darko.

Also, Troy Duffy is a massive egomaniacal twatbag, and I kinda hope this flick bombs so he gets the metaphorical swift kick in the balls he rightly deserves.

Alex C · « **Reply #6 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 18:37 »

I'm just going to go ahead and quote myself a couple times here.

Quote from: Alex C on 24 Feb 2008, 12:42

Boondock Saints is divisive, not over or underrated. There's a difference. It was widely panned but not really reviled; it's got a 19% on Rotten Tomatoes because nobody could really recommend it but few critics felt like saying it was the worst thing they had ever seen either. They thought it a failure but not really a failure on the level of say, Rob Schneider's entire career. So it's really between people who really enjoyed it and made it a success through DVD sales while there's also a huge swath of people who are surprised that anyone likes it if they saw it at all but can't really work up the energy to really care. Personally, I thought it was pretty bad.

Quote from: Alex C on 24 Feb 2008, 12:53

Most of the people I've met have no interest in Boondock Saints before they saw it and less interest after they did. It deserves a lot of its criticism but there's a segment of people who will enjoy a competently filmed movie in that style even if it isn't particularly very original. It's a classic example of a genre enthusiast flim.

Aurjay · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 19:58 »

Donnie Darko is a perfect example and the horrid sequel S. Darko is another perfect example of how bad i think Boondock Saints is gonna be.

scarred · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 22:30 »

I am probably the only person in the universe who didn't think Boondock Saints was all that great and I am not excited for the sequel solely because everyone ever is going to be talking about how much greater the first one was for about 8 months now.

That being said the first one will doubtlessly be better than the 2nd.

KickThatBathProf · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 07:29 »

Quote from: scarred on 13 Oct 2009, 22:30

I am not the only person in the universe who didn't think Boondock Saints was all that great

el_loco_avs · « **Reply #10 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 05:42 »

Quote from: scarred on 13 Oct 2009, 22:30

I am probably the only person in the universe who didn't think Boondock Saints was all that great and I am not excited for the sequel solely because everyone ever is going to be talking about how much greater the first one was for about 8 months now.

That being said the first one will doubtlessly be better than the 2nd.

Man! The book was way better!

Bearer · « **Reply #11 on:** 30 Oct 2009, 10:47 »

I met Troy duffy and the two lead actors at a QnA at Drexel U the other day. They kind of quashed my fears of this movie messing up the vibe of the first movie.

Also, the first movie is by no means a ground shaking, revolutionary GOOD movie. It's appeal comes from watching it with a group of people and having a good time, because damn it is a fun movie to watch, especially if your a sick and twisted individual who likes watching cats go splat (which I'm told by sean patrick flannery there is more of in this new installment).

Seeing it in imax tonight, can't wait!

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #12 on:** 30 Oct 2009, 18:27 »

I have no qualms regarding the first movie.

But strictly speaking. Is this necessary? I beleive that original content would serve the public better than a sequel.

allison · « **Reply #13 on:** 31 Oct 2009, 06:48 »

I just entered a contest to win passes to the Toronto premiere - there's a Q&A with Troy Duffy then too. If Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus show up, I will probably have a heart attack. I don't know what it is about them but they are... guh.

0bsessions · « **Reply #14 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 09:43 »

Quote from: Chesire Cat on 30 Oct 2009, 18:27

But strictly speaking. Is this necessary? I beleive that original content would serve the public better than a sequel.

Insightful commentary! Never heard an argument of this sort toward a sequel! A+! Four stars!

Chesire Cat · « **Reply #15 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 14:30 »

Well certain sequels make sense. But forcing a sequel into a standalone product that ended on an end note is a bit different. Especially if the sequel comes this many years after the first. Kind of like Rocky I through IV made sense and were good enough, but throwing on the '06 Rocky was utterly pointless.

Surgoshan · « **Reply #16 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 16:53 »

Man, imagine if Sylvester Stallone had died after writing and starring in First Blood and Rocky; how much better would the world be? Not excessively so, as Rockys... Rockies... the second and third Rocky movies came out before First Blood.

Alex C · « **Reply #17 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 17:53 »

Nodaisho · « **Reply #18 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 17:55 »

A world without Demolition Man is a world not worth living in.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #19 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 18:47 »

Scarychips · « **Reply #20 on:** 01 Nov 2009, 19:36 »

He looks like Seinfeld on that one.

Mnementh · « **Reply #21 on:** 03 Nov 2009, 11:16 »

Quote from: Johnny C on 13 Oct 2009, 16:12

It was a really fun action movie that has seen a backlash in recent years cause of a fan culture that thinks it was a serious movie.

This.

To view it as a serious film rather than a fun action flick is to buy into some really creepy theocratic vigilantist ideas.

KvP · « **Reply #22 on:** 03 Nov 2009, 11:41 »

I don't think it was a particularly good fun action movie, myself.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Boondock Saints...2? (Read 12186 times)