Directed by:
Troy DuffyScreenplay:
Troy DuffyCinematography:
Adam KaneComposer:
Jeff DannaCast:
Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, David Della Rocco, Billy Connolly, David Ferry, Gerard Parkes, Jeanna Fine, Kevin Chapman, Troy Duffy (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
Boston, Massachusetts. Home of clam chowder, the Red Sox and Harvard. Home, too, to some of the roughest, toughest criminals ever to walk the streets. When the bungling McManus brothers, Conner (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus), inadvertently end up taking out a pair of Russian Mafiosi, they realise they've found their calling and embark on a mission to cleanse their city of criminals, inspired by the tactics of on-screen vigilantes like Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson. But their vigilante antics soon attract the attention of Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe), an FBI agent with his own unique approach to fighting crime, setting the stage for an epic confrontation that will redefine the words truth and justice. (Arrow Films)
(more)Reviews (9)
All things considered, the film fell far short of my expectations. I was expecting more gore, more violence, more action. The film practically works in that vein all the time. The characters don't spare the macho bullshit about exterminating the mafia and how they’re not messing around, and there are all of three such scenes. Likewise, when the bad guys pick up some uber-slasher from the prison to rip him one, the viewer is in for a hell of a shootout. And yet this takes place in such a way that the three characters are unable to properly shoot the opponent standing in front of them, who in turn is unable to take them down. In addition, the story is very strange, with a few absolutely incomprehensible interjections (Dafoe like fuck) and so on. Fortunately, the first half contains quite a few good lines, and Willie is really pouring it on. Otherwise, wasted potential.
()
Two self-proclaimed angels of justice are crushed through the grinder of bland "post-Tarantino" dialogue, and it’s not helped by any attempt at a vigorous narrative style. Duffy sets up the whole situation very casually, without emphasis on the absurdity of the plot (one cat can't save it) and the comic hyperbole it draws from. The main duo is accurate, and so is Dafoe’s detective, but they all flounder in a situation that begins and ends with the opening sermon in the church.
()
Tarantino's poetics, a lot of violence peppered with hyperbole in places, "fuck" following every other word, brisk direction by Duffy with a few visual flourishes that erase the handicap of the basic script and the low budget. But I also have to partially agree with betelgeus, I am slowly getting tired of the Taratino clones. Not everyone can combine violence with absurd humour as well as Tarantino or Guy Ritchie. Duffy has only a few bright moments (especially the scene with the unfortunate butchering of the cat). PS: On the other hand, Dafoe in the role of a genius detective is brilliant!
()
Those were the days when they didn't know how to do comic book stuff yet. If it had the aesthetic of a darker Marvel or normal DC today, it could be a blast. But The Boondock Saints has a bit of a blowhard Ritchie and a bit of a whiny Tarantino, with some solid screenwriting in places, but nothing more. The few interesting moments cannot overcome the utter aesthetic chaos and confusing directorial style. I’d be interested in a remake, because the material does have potential.
()
Well, I was flabbergasted. This isn't just any ordinary crime/thriller, this is a proper gritty film about two brothers who decide to take justice into their own hands as two saints who are chosen to rid the world of filth. There's also the great Willem Dafoe, who is breathtaking as the policeman. A big surprise!
()
Ads