#1
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. Last edited by MT2008; 09-03-2009 at 04:13 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I don't think this sequel will be as good without Wilim Defoe
__________________
"There's a fine line between not listening and not caring...I like to think I walk that line everyday of my life." Blessed be the LORD, my rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle Psalm 144:1 “It is always wrong to use force, unless it is more wrong not to.” |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I'm a firm believer in the law of diminishing returns, but I'll see it anyways.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
-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. Last edited by MT2008; 09-04-2009 at 01:15 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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. Last edited by predator20; 09-04-2009 at 04:42 AM. Reason: added stuff |
|
|