You might be wondering why I took so long after this movie was released to review it, that's because it wasn't released everywhere at the same time. This movie didn't come to my area until this week. Oh well, limited releases and all that.
Ok, so first off let me dispel a lot of hate speech people have been putting out concerning this movie, it's not bad, not horrible, not awful. What it is could best be described with the use of a single word: schizophrenic.
Bear in mind: crazy is not always a bad thing, Vincent van Gogh was arguably pretty nuts and that worked out pretty well for him, at least from a historical and artistic perspective. So while this movie isn't BAD, it is nuts, but it does manage to take the pigskin of lunacy and run with it.
There have been endless complaints by people comparing this movie to the first and while those arguments would be valid with most sequels like the matrix trilogy where the quality steadily and systematically went down in a nice curve that would give any statistician the warm fuzzies, that is simply not the case here.
This movie is not actually a sequel per se, what it is is a side story, or more accurately it's a collection of anecdotes involving characters that happened to exist in the movie boondock saints, that's all there is to it really.
Now the obvious argument becomes: "But Daniel, what you're arguing is sheer lunacy, you can't have a movie with the number in the title and have it not be a sequel!" Well my good sir, the first flaw in your argument is that you used my name and the word lunacy in the same sentence, as madness is my Forté, you have no chance to survive and I will most assuredly make your time. Secondly a movie with a number in the title in no way has to be a sequel or even related to any other film for that matter, see history of the world part one by Mel Brooks.
I refuse to say this movie is bad because it isn't, there are things ABOUT it that are bad, but in and of itself it is not bad. The acting is good, with the exception of Julie Benz, who I respect a great deal as an actress but simply cannot condone her failure to portray a character with a beating heart and functioning brain in this film.
I will admit that the aesthetics were better in this movie than the other (note that I say other and not first) boondock saints movie, but it failed to grasp the structural techniques that made boondock saints good: the jump cuts that actually left you wondering what happened and how in that funky usual suspects/fight club sort of way.
The plot did wonder about a bit in a disjointed manner and the movie was definitely on the long side and I will admit that was annoying, but you really don't have much time to notice that as you skip onto the next dream sequence.
So what is the bottom line? (yes I know if you actually read everything up to this point you're most likely saying "yes you bastard! what is the damn bottom line?! do I see this movie or not?!"
The bottom line is don't see this movie in theaters, it's not bad and you should rent it, but don't shell out $8 for it, honestly it's better spent on that cheap Christmas gift you're wavering on whether or not to buy for that random person you may or may not harbor homicidal tendencies for, but still wish to be on good terms with.
Comments