Badmovies.org Forum

BOONDOCK SAINTS (1999) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/) - Good film made better by the presence of Willem Dafoe. It's about a couple brothers who start killing mob figures with some religious belief behind it. Lots of fun here as Willem Dafoe from the FBI comes in to figure out each death. Didn't like the excessive foul mouthed Italian thug who later joins the two brothers. He was fun but just to much cursing. Anyway this is a good film and most of you have probably already seen it, but this is my first viewing.

:thumbup: :thumbup: (7 out of 10 Stars) The investigations of Dafoe make this film above average.

(http://explodingfists.com/peter/League/images/boondock%20saints.jpg)

Go to the IMDB on this one and they're pretty evenly split.
Half hated it..half loved it.
I haven't seen it yet...but from what I've read, I'm about 90% sure I won't like it.
But then again...you never know until you try it right?

I loved Boondock Saints my first go-round with it.  I think I ended up raving on here how great of a film it was and all.

After repeat viewings, it doesn't hold up as well for me.  The film is still fun, and I can't help but laugh each time I see the scene with the brothers and Rocco drunk at the table with the cat.  I think the film doesn't hold up as well now mainly because I saw "Overnight" recently which profiles Boondock's writer/director - Troy Duffy.  If there is anyone that can ruin your opinion on the film, it's him.  The guy is an absolute prick.  I highly recommend watching it, as it does make an interesting compainion piece to Boondocks.

Here's the imdb link:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0390336/

I didn't really like Boondock Saints at all. It seemed like a blatant attempt at cobbling together a Tarantinoesque film, but it misses with the whole "urban folklore told inventively" aspect that is crucial to that kind of movie and just amps up the vulgar aspects.

Guy Ritchie rips off Tarantino alot better.

I personally loved this film and have watched it multiple times! Willem Dafoe does indeed help make this movie a lot better (but that's pretty much goes for any film Dafoe is in. I think Spider-Man would've tanked had Willie not been the Green Goblin!).

I love the part where the cat bites the dust and it's awesome when Dafoe's character is in bed with that little Asian dude: "What the hell are you doing?"
"I just wanted to cuddle."
"Fag!"

ROFL!

Yes, it's flawed --
But after reading some really scathing comments about the film, I was prepared to hate it --
But my wife brought it home & we watched it & both laughed and enjoyed it very much -- Billy Conolly as the multi-gunned, indestructible daddy was a real hoot of a character -- Yes, they could have done more with him, but that didn't make me hate the film.
Yes, the guy who made it and his story make for one of the quintessential Hollywood Burnout stories of all time.  Talk about power corrupting --
peter johnson/denny crane

Watched it some months ago because of its cult status. Sort of enjoyed it, but it's got lots of annoying little faults, like the bad language, which doesn't serve any purpose, that actor who plays the brothers' buddy or the constant changes in tone. Liked the action and Willem Dafoe, though.

Hated for some of the reasons covered by others, and by me in another thread not too long ago.

Just felt like it was trying too hard to be hip covering territory already done better by others, also I had raised expectations before I saw it since it was hard to find a copy for rent around here for some reason for a while. Not even Billy Connolly could redeem this one for me, a rare thing. He helped make An Everlasting Piece better than it had a right to be, more of him might have made it a good movie instead of a so-so one.

Still want to see Overnight, since the story of the Troy Duffy and the cult following fascinate me more than the movie itself ever did.

I love it. Interesting, well-made, significantly less swearing than about 10 minutes of any episode of "Deadwood", funny, considering the territory it covers pretty original too.

I've not seen the documentary on the director, but I'm sure there's much bigger a***oles that have made films I've enjoyed more- same for most of the members here.

To each their own, I guess. Swearing doesn't bother me in and of itself, but when it's overused or badly used, it's distracting, like in this film. Good writing and acting can make the cussing integral to the movie or show. Midnight Run is the example I use the most, the film just doesn't work as well edited of the cuss words. Same for the original The Longest Yard.

But as a fan of Deadwood, I found the swearing to integral to the dialogue. The clash of rough frontier life and the vestages of cultured behavior and propriety from back East makes for good viewing.

IOW, David Milch writes some great dialogue and folks like Ian McShane really sell it, for me anyway.

Quote from: Yaddo 42 on January 02, 2007, 04:45:30 AM
To each their own, I guess. Swearing doesn't bother me in and of itself, but when it's overused or badly used, it's distracting, like in this film. Good writing and acting can make the cussing integral to the movie or show. Midnight Run is the example I use the most, the film just doesn't work as well edited of the cuss words. Same for the original The Longest Yard.

But as a fan of Deadwood, I found the swearing to integral to the dialogue. The clash of rough frontier life and the vestages of cultured behavior and propriety from back East makes for good viewing.

IOW, David Milch writes some great dialogue and folks like Ian McShane really sell it, for me anyway.

Such is the wide, wonderful world we live in. I honestly didn't notice an excessive amount of swearing in "Boondock Saints" and because of the world they explored in the film I'd say it was appropriate. My comment was more directed at Neville, who mentioned not liking the excessive bad language in the film. I love "Deadwood" too, I was just comparing quantity of swearing with no value judgements.

Normally I don't mind excessive profanity, but the bad language here didn't feel right, it looked to me as if they were trying to season the dialogues adding foul language.

Haven't seen "Deadwood" yet, so I can't tell if I would find it annoying there.

I've gotta agree with Yaddo.
Deadwood is awesome!

The profanity in it is like nothing you've ever heard before.
Imagine old Victorian "properness" combined with some of the most filthy language you will ever hear in your life and that's the dialogue of Deadwood.

I've heard that several drinking games have been created based on the number of profanities used in Deadwood episodes.

Al Swearengen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_Deadwood#Al_Swearengen) is the undisputed Master of Profanity!
(http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3184/ep20alcheersou7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)


Still haven't seen Boondock Saints yet.

I know Ian McShane as the eponymous mild-mannered antiques expert in "Lovejoy", so to see him like that was a bit of a shock the first time. He's really really good in the role though.

Sorry, miles off-topic. Yay Boondock Saints :)

     As several people have posted comments re. profanity in films on this thread, I'll pop one in as well:
     I agree with the position that in and of itself, profanity is not a make or break in a film, but it does indeed become annoying as hell when it seems tacked on and gratuitous.
     A gratuitous breast-shot can be funny and self-aware, plus they're generally pleasant to observe in any context.  Vulgar language to no end, however, can be wearing and tiresome, much like being seated next to some loud drunk in a restuarant who won't shut up.
     Case in point:  I really really wanted to unequivocally enjoy "Magnolia", given I liked the premise and the production people involved, etc.  However, the incessant and clunky/clanky over-use of the dreaded "F-bomb" soon wore me out.  Every character in the film shouldn't have been using the word like a grammatical article, unless the point was that we were now in some weird parallel universe wherein the word was as common as "a" or "the".  Simply ruinded for me what should have been a great movie experience.
peter johnson/denny maledicta

Quote from: peter johnson on January 02, 2007, 11:45:52 AM
     A gratuitous breast-shot can be funny and self-aware, plus they're generally pleasant to observe in any context.  Vulgar language to no end, however, can be wearing and tiresome, much like being seated next to some loud drunk in a restuarant who won't shut up.
     

So breast shots for no reason are fine in a film but swearing for no reason isn't? I just feel we should have gotten beyond that a bit, I'm not chopped liver but equally I'd rather see women in modern films be portrayed as something more than eye candy.

I think my main argument is the swearing in "Boondock Saints" isn't unnecessary. And the discussion of "Deadwood" reveals that quite a lot of swearing in a show can be crucial to the plot- so there's certainly no hard and fast rules. And if you're offended by swearing in any context...I recommend you finding out how many ordinary people live below the UN's official poverty line while others have far more money than they could spend in a hundred lifetimes, and getting a sense of perspective about what's really offensive.

Re. The UN poverty line --
This reminds me of Nixon and Kruschev in the New York Modern Kitchen exhibition.  Nixon points out to Kruschev that this is how the average American kitchen could look in 1961, and how would this compare to what the average Soviet citizen could look forward to?
Kruschev replies:  "What about the Negroes in Harlem?"
* * *
Moral:  We are talking about commonalities in bad movies, not UN issues of international poverty.
      By this standard, if I find a child in a restuarant to be badly behaved because he throws things at me, I am not allowed to say anything because people in Sudan are starving.
     So, to keep comparing apples and flying fish:
Yes, I would certainly say that a random, gratuitous breast shot, particularly an over-the-top one, like the hottub scene in "European Vacation", can be a great source of humour -- Just like a self-aware swearing scene, re. "Happy Birthday Wanda June", wherein the characters marvel over the commonality of formerly filthy words, can be hysterically entertaining.
     What I am annoyed with is the unneccessary addition of hip-hop vocabulary to scenes that don't require it. 
     Nor was I necessarily championing the wholesale treatment of women as eye candy.  Are we not allowed to say breasts are pleasant to look at and that repetitive, dull, repetitive verbal singularities are unpleasant to listen to without offending the Modern Sensibility?
peter victorian/denny tits

Ron Jeremy's death scene & performance in this one was the only thing I liked about it.

I actually thought that Willem Dafoe was terrible.

Quote from: peter johnson on January 03, 2007, 06:30:19 PM
Re. The UN poverty line --
This reminds me of Nixon and Kruschev in the New York Modern Kitchen exhibition.  Nixon points out to Kruschev that this is how the average American kitchen could look in 1961, and how would this compare to what the average Soviet citizen could look forward to?
Kruschev replies:  "What about the Negroes in Harlem?"
* * *
Moral:  We are talking about commonalities in bad movies, not UN issues of international poverty.
      By this standard, if I find a child in a restuarant to be badly behaved because he throws things at me, I am not allowed to say anything because people in Sudan are starving.
     So, to keep comparing apples and flying fish:

Incorrect comparison- if you were annoyed by kids in a restaurant, but not annoyed by kids in a movie theatre, then it'd be a similar comparison to what I was saying. It's also a silly comparison because I was clearly referring to people who just seem to be annoyed by swearing per se (a few of whom have posted in this thread). But carry on feeling aggrieved about comments not directed at you if you like.

QuoteAre we not allowed to say breasts are pleasant to look at and that repetitive, dull, repetitive verbal singularities are unpleasant to listen to without offending the Modern Sensibility?

"Dull, repetitive verbal singularities". So, not just swearing in films but that. So not comparing like with like. Did I say breasts were unpleasant to look at? Do you find ignoring what the other person says wins you a lot of arguments? Saying you like "gratuitous" breast shots is a movie is not the same as saying you think breasts are pleasant to look at, but perhaps to you it is.

I do not follow your argument.
You were comparing things that did not go together:  UN poverty standards vs. being annoyed by profanity.
You took me to task because I said random, gratuitous breast shots were enjoyable &  you said you'd hoped we'd gotten beyond that.  No, you did not say breasts were unpleasant to look at, but you still did not like my remarks.
Not really interested in an Argument Clinic either --
Read your own posts, for goodness sake!!
I really do try not to take umbrage with things not directed at me, but you're all over the map here --
Focus, baby, focus . . .
Reread my post:  I was saying that the use of profanity in modern films IS "repetitive, dull, repetitive".  I was not introducing a new topic.
To repeat:  I don't find random, gratuitous breast shots to be offensive, but I do find the mindless, overuse of profanity in modern movies to be tedious and self-defeating.  That is all.
peter johnson/denny WTF

Quote from: Ashthecat on December 13, 2006, 01:49:37 PM
Go to the IMDB on this one and they're pretty evenly split.
Half hated it..half loved it.

The IMDb community is usually pretty split, aren't they?