The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
 

Trailer just got released to IGN and YouTube yesterday:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if2-PYxgL50

It's crazy that it took them a full 10 years to make a sequel to this movie. Hopefully, it'll be fun and retain the aesthetic which made its predecessor successful...without taking itself too seriously.

I remember the director Troy Duffy on DVD commentary saying the first film got released when all the school shootings happened. So it didn't get much of release and moviegoers were not in a gun movie mood. Waiting 10 years is better than no sequel at all.

That's mostly just an excuse by Duffy. If you ever watch the documentary "Overnight", it sheds light on many of the real reasons why the first film never got a big theatrical release. A lot of it was due to Duffy's own reputation in the biz. If school shootings were the reason that "The Boondock Saints" bombed, then "The Matrix" should have bombed, too, because it came out at the exact same time as Columbine. Keanu Reeves even sports a trench coat and sunglasses on the movie's theatrical poster, just like the Columbine killers did in real life, yet nobody seemed to mind.

I guess 10 years is better than no sequel, but the problem is that those 10 years haven't been too kind to Sean Patrick Flannery or Billy Connelly (both of them have aged a LOT). Norman Reedus still looks pretty young and fit for 40, but I also thought he was the weaker actor of the two brothers. As for the new blood in the cast, Clifton Collins and Julie Benz are talented, but I doubt they're going to be able to substitute for David Della Rocco and Willem Dafoe (whom their characters replace).

I'll probably see this movie, because I watched and enjoyed the first film dozens of times in spite of its (obvious) artistic and moral shortcomings. But my expectations are low that Duffy's magic tricks are going to be effective twice.

While I know you're not comparing The Matrix to the The Boondock Saints. But The Matrix had a $63 million budget and was released in 2,800 theaters. The Boondocks $7 million budget only 5 screens. That info is from box office mojo on IMDB. Which film is going to do better?

I don't think I ever saw a trailer for Boondocks, but I remember seeing a shitload for Matrix. The studio put no effort behind the film. I guess because like you said Duffy's reputation in the movie biz. Which he had none. But I guess since it has done so well on DVDs. A sequel was in order.

I don't think this sequel will be as good without Wilim Defoe

I'm a firm believer in the law of diminishing returns, but I'll see it anyways.

Nah, none of that (the bold highlighted stuff) is what I meant. It's really best if you watch "Overnight" to understand, but here is what you need to know in case you never watch the documentary:

-Duffy's script for "The Boondock Saints" was originally purchased by Harvey Weinstein, and the film was supposed to be funded by Miramax. Duffy would have had a $12 million budget.

-Miramax wound up putting the film into turnaround, because Duffy and Weinstein had a falling out over casting decisions for the film. After that, Weinstein effectively blacklisted Duffy in the industry.

-Duffy himself seems to blame Weinstein for almost all of the disagreements and his own subsequent misfortune, but as "Overnight" shows, it's easy to see why he and Weinstein got on bad terms. Duffy basically became a narcissistic, egomaniacal asshole who figured he could act stupid ("Overnight" shows footage of him bragging that he showed up to meetings with investors hung over) and that there would be no consequences. His boorish behavior, combined with his big mouth, were what got him in trouble.

-Duffy eventually did get "The Boondock Saints" made, but it was with producer Chris Brinker's Franchise Pictures, a lesser-known studio. His budget was much smaller ($5 million), and he didn't have the clout to cast big-name actors that he wanted.

-"Boondock Saints" was taken to Cannes, and no purchasing offers were made. That is why it got no theatrical release or promotion. The reasons for this are disputed, but most people agree that it had a lot to do with Weinstein blacklisting him. Or maybe it was just that Duffy's reputation for his dealings with Miramax had preceded him. Either way, he fucked up the deal of a lifetime.

And that's the story in a nutshell. My point being, Duffy could have had a wide release for his film if he had just been a little more humble. It wasn't Columbine that screwed him; it was his own stupidity.

Overnight is available for streaming on Netflix. So I'll check it out. I don't remember Duffy talking about Weinstein at the start of commentary. He may have, it's been awhile since I watched it with the commentary. Thanks for the info. Duffy would probably have 2 or 3 more films under his belt, if he hadn't done the things he did.

Duffy has, to the best of my knowledge, never commented on "Overnight" at all, let alone addressed his issues with Weinstein. I'm guessing he'd rather his fans don't know the full story.

One of the funniest quotes in "Overnight" is a scene where he brags, "Harvey Weinstein is afraid of me." Then later he's on the phone with Weinstein, ass-kissing him to the Nth degree, begging to return to his good graces. It's so pathetic that it's funny.

In Overnight it said Duffy would have cast and final cut approval. I think the biggest mistake Duffy made was keeping William Morris law firm. They also represented Weinstein. Who are they going to care about more Weinstein or Duffy? I'm wondering who was taking the offers at Canne. I mean Weinstien may run Miramax. But Miramax is no Warner Bros. or Paramount. There is bound to be other people in the movie biz that hate Weinstein. It's all about competition.


I heard the "Harvey Weinstein is afraid of me." but I didn't see or hear the phone call. Could've missed it.

Also The Matrix was released March 31st, Columbine happened April 20th. It had box office time.

Duffy said in the commentary they had their first preview screening 2 weeks after Columbine. He did say The Matrix and The Basketball Diaries were being played all the time in the news after it happened. I'm in no way trying to stick up for Duffy. He did somethings he shouldn't have done and he's paid it.

Interesting. I haven't seen "Overnight" in about 3 or 4 years now, but I thought I remembered the arguments with Weinstein being over casting? Or at least, partially over casting. But I did have to look up some reviews to recall certain details, so maybe those got it wrong.

Absolutely, and I guess Chris Brinker was one of those people. But while Weinstein himself is a controversial figure in the business, his badmouthing of Duffy, combined with Duffy's own behavior, could have gone a long way. I mean, let's face it...isn't it pretty obvious by the way that Duffy behaves in the documentary that almost nobody in their right mind would want to give him a multi-million dollar budget to do with as he pleased?

I don't remember exactly where it was, but I do remember it. At least one review mentions it.


True, but the fact is, it was in theaters for a while (its original release was somewhat limited, if I recall) and gathered momentum through word of mouth. I remember "Time" compared the image of Keanu Reeves on the poster to the Columbine shooters, and still, that didn't hurt the movie's success at all.

I really don't think studios were shying away from shoot-em-up films that much, even after "Columbine". It still sounds to me way more like an excuse by Duffy, who has motive to deny that "Overnight" exists, let alone admit that he dug his own grave. As we agree, he did things he shouldn't done. He was an arrogant SOB, he didn't behave the way he needed to, and he forgot that getting an offer is only the first step to getting the movie made.

Anyway, I still wish him best of luck with the sequel, and hope he's learned his lessons.

While we have veered way off the original topic. It is fun discussing this.

In Overnight it never explains what happened between Duffy and Weinstein. It very well could have been casting. Even though had Duffy final choice, Weinstein may have thought Duffy's cast would have been a bad choice. When the film got put in turnaround. Duffy didn't accuse Weinstien at first, but a women executive at Miramax. Her name is mentioned in Overnight, I can''t remember it.

I watched the first half of Boondocks with the commentary. Duffy makes no mention of his deal with Weinstein. He says he got all these offers from different studios with big budgets, but he decided on a smaller budget to make the film he wanted to make. In reality that wasn't the case. Duffy had no choice but to take the small budget if he wanted to get the film made.

In Overnight he came off as a major dick. But look who made the film. Two guys that were managers for Duffy's band and was left pissing in the wind by him. So they're are bound to hate him with good reason.

The Matrix had pulled in 27 million by April 4th its opening weekend. But I'm wondering if it nosedived after Columbine. With all the negative publicity made towards gun movies. It could have scared off potential buyers.

But the major thing that makes me wonder. They don't just let any film get into Canne do they? There had to have been at least one interested buyer. I mean the film cost 5 to 6 million to make. It could have tripled that at least if it would have been given the publicity. The Boondocks is a damn good film, it's really enjoyable to watch. One of the best lines. "Cuddle? What a fag?" (I have a nothing against gay people, it just hilarious to hear it from a gay character.)

I hope All Saints Day does good in the box office. New people are bound to check out the first film after seeing the trailer for part 2.

Here's what IMDB says:

$129,715,015 (USA) (2 May 1999)
$117,082,992 (USA) (25 April 1999)
$98,946,842 (USA) (18 April 1999)
$73,310,417 (USA) (11 April 1999)
$37,352,692 (USA) (4 April 1999)

You can see it took in about $25 million from April 11th to 18th, and then $19 million from the 18th to the 25th (after Columbine). A decline of $6 million is not that substantial; it's pretty standard for any film that's been out for several weeks. Especially since you can see that it stabilized and continuously took in $4-$5 per week for most of May and June. If Columbine really scared moviegoers away from action films, I think it would be way more obvious in the film's numbers.

Besides, the entertainment industry almost never shies away from material only because it's controversial. Usually, controversy has the opposite effect - it boosts interest in a movie. I really just don't think it explains why "The Boondock Saints" received no purchase offers. I think the explanations are more likely:

(1.) Duffy's reputation as an arrogant prick.

(2.) The fact that on the surface, "Boondock Saints" really isn't that good a movie, besides Willem Dafoe's performance and its cult status. If you're a distributor and you have to decide which movie is going to get millions of dollars in marketing budget costs, what would you see in "The Boondock Saints"? (and remember that in the mid- to late-1990s, there were a lot of Tarantino-style shoot-em-ups coming out)

The "Overnight" movie made Duffy look like a drunk jackass. The only thing that went wrong was the deal felled apart. The movie is awesome and it has a religious meaning to it: God's laws are greater than the laws of men and that evil and sin is every where and you shoul do something about it. I have to wait until the sequel's out on DVD because it only got released in 70 theaters in the New York area. That's really a fuckin' pain in the ass but I'm paitent.

They shoulda made this movie years ago if they wanted a sequel. It's a bit too late for one and no Defoe

Ahhh the movie business. I have a PBS documentary mini-series about Hollywood. It aired approximately fifteen years ago and it's excellent. Many people in the business gave interviews. One of the people to be interviewed was Mr. Heston. He had a great saying about the movie biz. I'm paraphrasing here, but it's still on the mark.

"The trouble with movie making as a business is that it's art. The trouble with movie making as art is that it's a business."

What a great description for what seems to me to be such a Helter - Skelter world. I'm a move buff and a layman so my observations are that of an outsider of course.

Well, the sequel did pretty well in its limited run...it made over $500,000 last weekend, which sounds tiny, but actually is pretty good considering it was released in 70 theaters. They're going to expand it to other markets next week.

Also, while I agree that Dafoe was pretty important to the original, let's not lose focus of the facts here...the original was a pretty bad movie itself. Reviews I've read so far say that the sequel is better in comparison, but the bar was pretty low to start.

The first movie had it's moments but it kind sucked.

I thought the first movie was pretty good

The lines were just ridiculous.

The first movie could have been a cheesy, tongue in cheek action movie or a serious action film.

It tried to be both. And it failed. Tremendously.

Willem Dafoe was the only good thing about it. That is, because all of his scenes are in the tongue in cheek style. Willem Dafoe is just simply awesome. The underworld scene in Platoon was in tongue and cheek style and was one of the great scenes in the movie. I mean, we got a Grassmask AND a Remington Wingmaster being used as an bong. I mean, come on!

I enjoyed the first "Boondock Saints", but objectively speaking, it's still a rip-off of "Pulp Fiction" and a whole bunch of other movies.

For me, most of its appeal comes not from the film itself, but from how you watch it and who you watch it with. Some of my best memories from college, freshman year, were watching this film with my roommates when we were all drunk and eating pizza or take-out Chinese (kind of the way that the Saints were in the movie, before they shot the cat). Somehow, the "Boondock Saints" manages to be the perfect film for those kinds of occasions.

The movie still seems original to me. I say that these "rip-offs" are actually homages to them. Anyway, what university did you go to? I'm planning to go to Norte Damne since my Aunt and Uncle (who are authors) live there.

Just wondering, where did some of these screencaps come from? Some weren't in trailers.

BTW, how did they get a j-22 to cycle blanks? They don't even digest real ammo.

Movie magic!