Column:

Re-watch: 'Boondock Saints' sequel could ruin original

By Katy Wagner

Published Nov. 6, 2009

Walk into any residence hall room on campus and I can tell you what posters you'll see: John Belushi via "Animal House," John Lennon's "Imagine" and the gun-toting McManus brothers of "The Boondock Saints."

"The Boondock Saints" is a resonating cult film that has captured the imagination of a generation. Written, directed and self-produced by Troy Duffy, the critically panned film had a five-screen weeklong theatrical run in 1999. Despite this grim outlook, the high school and college-aged population embraced the movie. DVD sales rose and 10 years later a glossier sequel was released, "The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day."

Unfortunately, the sequel is not playing anywhere within a reasonable distance from Columbia. As someone who had "The Boondock Saints" all over her room, I took the next logical step and sat down to revisit the original film. Was it really deserving of its cult status? What about "The Boondock Saints" evokes such a visceral response within its audience?

For the small percentage of folks who haven't seen "Saints," perhaps a quick synopsis is in order. After a nearly fatal bar fight with a pair of Russian mafia workers, Connor and Murphy McManus vow to rid Boston of parasitic criminals.

On the surface, the film suffers a variety of problems. "The Boondock Saints" was Duffy's first film, and it shows. The plot is dislocating at times, a massive kink only remedied by re-watching the film. Specific plot points are undermined by a lack of exposition. Sparse directing and bland composition make the film seem like a lackluster Quentin Tarantino rip-off. Pair this with bad acting from the majority of the cast and hilarious over-acting by Willem Dafoe, and what does "The Boondock Saints" have?

One trait that emerged from the convoluted writing is Duffy's bizarre sense of humor. The riotous, often violent comedy of the film appeals to the sort of audience the movie attracts. It is in the brash moments that "Saints" manages to pull apart from many gangster films like it. The brothers share an entertaining chemistry that easily sets this off. Still, this might be seen as echoes of Tarantino's work.

But Duffy did something with "The Boondock Saints" that Tarantino has never done. He tapped into a deep vein of vigilantism, justice and family that is often dealt with, but is mostly over-interrogated. When a movie deals with these topics, they are analyzed beyond recognition. "Saints" doesn't bother with the logistics of vigilantism, but embraces it.

The film's cult status has been solidified because the McManus brothers do something we only wish we could do -- physically right the injustices we see everyday. Moral men can rest at ease while Connor and Murphy exact righteous payments to those deserving. We watch as they exact their bloody vengeance with a baffling sense of gratification. This sort of unbridled vigilantism could never fully function, but we all secretly crave it.

"The Boondock Saints" does not attempt to delve too far into vigilantism and instead is content to bask in its idealistic glory. I fear this will have to be lost within the sequel. How can the brothers continue without some sort of failure and would that undermine the glory of the original? I guess we'll just have to find out when the DVD is released.