← Back to Reviews
in
The Boondock Saints is a 1999 crime thriller film directed by Troy Duffy starring Sean Flanery and Patrick Reedus.
In this film, Flanery and Reedus are two Irish Catholic vigilantes who go around murdering mobsters while also looking for people to join them on their quasi-religious crusade against crime. All the while, William Dafoe, as a gay detective, is on a manhunt for them but eventually agrees to help them.
Let me clarify; I'm a huge fan of over-the-top action films- excessive violence, profanity, and blood are the trademarks of some of my favorite movies. I love Hard Boiled. I love Reservoir Dogs. The Killer, Django Unchained, and Inglourious Basterds are great. So why does this film, which hits all the right marks here, leave me with so much distaste?
Well, lets take a look at this.
First of all, none of the characters are likable. The two twin Irish brothers have no character other than excessive swearing, a love for pop culture, Catholicism, and an unexplained penchant for killing. They have no life, realism, or development to them- I don't know if this is the result of uninspired performances by the actors or the uninspired writing.
And no, they aren't Catholic because they act like they're Catholic. They're Catholic because the movie tells us they're Catholic. They say a prayer before every kill and they go to church, so they must be very religious, am I right? I don't think that's how it works.
Secondly, the morality of this movie is ridiculously black and white. The brothers are right, and criminals are wrong, so, according to the movie, they have every right to go on a murder spree. Even the priest and the detective agree with this! And the end of the movie- the interviews of random citizens are simply awful, they raise no real moral questions nor do they end the film in a satisfying manner.
And I'm just realizing just how much this movie wants to be a Tarantino film. There's all the hallmarks of Tarantino already mentioned- blood, swearing, and brutality- but there's also Tarantino details like:
-unwarranted use of the N-word
-constant pop culture references
-use of nonlinear narratives
-overacted character(s)
The problem is, all of these are done far better by Tarantino. The script and general dialogue of this movie is so insipid. The profanity actually feels overused, despite this film not having much more than a typical Tarantino film. But QT actually knows how to write believable, witty, and explosive dialogue where the excessive swearing doesn't actually feel excessive.
The only character that I sort of liked was the gay detective. Why is the gay detective gay? Felt like a really arbitrary detail, but whatever. Diversity, I guess. Dafoe really puts himself into this performance but he's really just a cartoon character- he's a perfect detective who also listens to classical music and swears a lot. Despite being basically a caricature, he has more character than anyone else in the film.
David Della Rocco, played by David Della Rocco, is probably the worst of the bunch. He is written as a comedic relief character, except instead of being funny, he's really annoying.
Tony, in order to make him funny, you actually need to write him as being funny. You can't just say "Oh, he's called 'the funny man' and he swears a lot so he's automatically funny."
He's also annoyingly incompetent. Not just at being funny, but at everything else he does. I was glad when he [spoiler alert] died.
Could somebody please explain to me why it has such an adoring cult fanbase and a 7.8 on IMDB? I see nothing other than a poorly done Tarantino here.
The Boondock Saints is a 1999 crime thriller film directed by Troy Duffy starring Sean Flanery and Patrick Reedus.
In this film, Flanery and Reedus are two Irish Catholic vigilantes who go around murdering mobsters while also looking for people to join them on their quasi-religious crusade against crime. All the while, William Dafoe, as a gay detective, is on a manhunt for them but eventually agrees to help them.
Let me clarify; I'm a huge fan of over-the-top action films- excessive violence, profanity, and blood are the trademarks of some of my favorite movies. I love Hard Boiled. I love Reservoir Dogs. The Killer, Django Unchained, and Inglourious Basterds are great. So why does this film, which hits all the right marks here, leave me with so much distaste?
Well, lets take a look at this.
First of all, none of the characters are likable. The two twin Irish brothers have no character other than excessive swearing, a love for pop culture, Catholicism, and an unexplained penchant for killing. They have no life, realism, or development to them- I don't know if this is the result of uninspired performances by the actors or the uninspired writing.
And no, they aren't Catholic because they act like they're Catholic. They're Catholic because the movie tells us they're Catholic. They say a prayer before every kill and they go to church, so they must be very religious, am I right? I don't think that's how it works.
Secondly, the morality of this movie is ridiculously black and white. The brothers are right, and criminals are wrong, so, according to the movie, they have every right to go on a murder spree. Even the priest and the detective agree with this! And the end of the movie- the interviews of random citizens are simply awful, they raise no real moral questions nor do they end the film in a satisfying manner.
And I'm just realizing just how much this movie wants to be a Tarantino film. There's all the hallmarks of Tarantino already mentioned- blood, swearing, and brutality- but there's also Tarantino details like:
-unwarranted use of the N-word
-constant pop culture references
-use of nonlinear narratives
-overacted character(s)
The problem is, all of these are done far better by Tarantino. The script and general dialogue of this movie is so insipid. The profanity actually feels overused, despite this film not having much more than a typical Tarantino film. But QT actually knows how to write believable, witty, and explosive dialogue where the excessive swearing doesn't actually feel excessive.
The only character that I sort of liked was the gay detective. Why is the gay detective gay? Felt like a really arbitrary detail, but whatever. Diversity, I guess. Dafoe really puts himself into this performance but he's really just a cartoon character- he's a perfect detective who also listens to classical music and swears a lot. Despite being basically a caricature, he has more character than anyone else in the film.
David Della Rocco, played by David Della Rocco, is probably the worst of the bunch. He is written as a comedic relief character, except instead of being funny, he's really annoying.
Tony, in order to make him funny, you actually need to write him as being funny. You can't just say "Oh, he's called 'the funny man' and he swears a lot so he's automatically funny."
He's also annoyingly incompetent. Not just at being funny, but at everything else he does. I was glad when he [spoiler alert] died.
Could somebody please explain to me why it has such an adoring cult fanbase and a 7.8 on IMDB? I see nothing other than a poorly done Tarantino here.