The Boondock Saints
Sep. 9th, 2004 08:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muck_a_luckI finally watched The Boondock Saints last night. "Finally" because it arrived this time last week and certain parties had been asking me on a nearly daily basis whether I’ve watched it, and when will I watch it, and why haven’t I watched it, and so on and so forth. *rolls eyes*
So last night, while working for the Boss, I put the disc in and opened up a screen in LJ to make notes, something I haven’t done while watching television since I finished my Capstone course at Carolina. That said, bear with me folks, it’s gonna be a long haul, and there are no screen caps (more’s the pity).
VERY VERY VERY major spoilers to follow.
So, first, I gotta be me. I can't fight it. Do you suppose the brothers are lottery winners? The greencard lottery was set up by JFK to enable more Irish to come to this country, and at least initially it was either only for Irish, or heavily favored them. Or do you suppose they are illegal? They are meatpackers, too. On presumes that would be a heavily unionized industry. Hard to believe that the two of them, together, can't do better than that nasty little hole where they live. I could imagine they might send all their cash back home to Mom, but she's not doing that great, either.
The brothers. First of all, must say that I was pleasantly surprsied by the high quality of acting they both manage. For a dinky litte action flick with two barely knowns as the leads, the acting in the whole thing was pretty good. Score one for the movie. It is interesting that they are twins, but not identical. One almost wonders why the scriptwriter/director bothered. They could just as easily be close brothers. Seems like too much backstory to me. However, one thing - they do the twin thing and dress alike. But since they aren't identical, it doesn't come off as cute and silly like when identicals do it, it comes off as a uniform. And speaking of clothes, it's easy to see why Mr. Reedus used to work for Prada. Man, the boy looks good in clothes!
Yes, it sounds like Russian to me, but I don't think there were many real Russians in this film. All the Russian extras in The X-Files are Russian. And the brothers, well, they speak Russian with heavy Irish accents. At least, that's how it sounds to me! Not that my Russian isn't 10 years out of use now… Was highly amused by the Russo-Italians.
This movie has moments of excellence. I thought the presentation of the various vigilante killings in reverse order was very effective, particularly the first time they did it - showing the dead gangsters in the alley, Smecker reconstructing the events, then showing the actual events as they occurred. It was fun and interesting, even after you knew what was happening, to try to figure it out with Smecker. And before you say anything, this movie was a year *before* Memento.
Also, I thought their baptism in the jailhouse was unexpected, effecting, and very well done. I saw the water dripping down from the ceiling and immediately think of the toilet water from their broken toilet. So I'm flinching, watching this probably foul, filthy water fall down on them, and then they have this simultaneous esthatic religious experience. Very well done. And an interesting baptism.
Dafoe's character was the big miss in this movie, I think. He was completely unbelieveable, as were the local police. Smecker was unbelievable just because he was way, way too over the top. Having a working FBI agent conducting a symphony of violence at every crime scene just seems unrealistic to me. I suppose you could argue that this guy was clearly some kind of genius expert in violent crime, so maybe understandably eccentric, but I'm not sure I'm buying in. However, thought his homosexuality was very well handled. He was gay the way most of the gay men I know are gay - it's obvious if you are looking for it, but it doesn't take over their whole personalities, it's not Hollywood flaming. They're just guys. And I was amused that it actually served a purpose in the plot.
Smecker was almost completely over the top, particularly as the movie went on. However, one scene I really did like was the side-by-side scene, where they showed the events as Smecker, in parallel and present in the scene, was figuring out what was happening. Though Smecker's breakdown at the end of the scene was really out there.
And I'm sure there are cops this dumb in the world. But on-screen, not believable. Just sayin'. They don't have to be brilliant, but these guys…
And are we really supposed to buy into an FBI agent coming over to the side of a couple of vigilantes? These are preofessional law enforcement agents. Sure, Smecker tells the priest that the brothers are doing what he can't - cutting through the red tape and killing the bad guys. And maybe he's in a particularly frustrating field, because he specializes in organized crime. But what about the killing of the two innocent bystander perverts in the porn salon. Because, yeah, I know, you wouldn't want to find out any guy you knew was going to a place like that, but paying to wank off while you watch some dancer ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLASS - not exactly a death penalty offense, you know? I mean, these guys weren't even having sex with whores when they got killed. They were just pathetically touching themselves, with a little live entertainment. If you were an FBI agent inclined to be sympathetic, wouldn't the deaths of these guys, and possibly the bartender, remind you that violent criminals are violent criminals and they need to be dealt with like every other violent criminal? Of course, you could argue that this genuis violent crime analyst is actually so deep into the brothers' heads that he realizes that they are on a holy mission to destroy evil and punish the guilty. That would explain what brought him to the church. That would explain his confidence that they would not harm the innocent (though I would argue that they actually DID kill a couple of "innocents" already).
The question is, of course, what do we really think of the brothers' vigilantism? Rocco is clearly corrupt, and I would argue that he *had* to die, within the rational of this film's universe, because he was clearly more than willing to join the side of evil. He came along with the angels for a little revenge trip, then got what was coming to him. The brothers, though, really do seem to be more or less just good guys. But then, they're talking with Rocco, and he asks them who they plan to kill. Pimps? Drug dealers? It's convenient that their first killings are in self-defense, and their second is essentially an assassination of some powerful, evil men. But do we really trust their judgment, after they killed the two random perverts and seem to think that any minor infringement deserves death? *shrugs* This is not a particularly deep movie, and I don't think that we can realistically expect it to deal with complicated issues like this, and the interviews at the end were a little bit of farce, but it does go to what we are supposed to think of the brothers' quest.
Heh. I really liked the scene in the air duct. I have always thought it was insanely stupid, how scriptwriters use airvents as magic conduits to everywhere you want to go. You might as well be using teleportation or transporter beams, for the amount of realism you get with a jaunt through the air ducts. So, first they get lost. Then they start bickering because it is uncomfortable and they realize how stupid it is. THEN, quite realistically, the duct, filled with 400 pounds or so of cute guys and their equipment (*snert*), collapses! And I loved the thing with the rope. Snorted snot all over myself laughing at that scene. And now, to your great alarm, an LOTR reference. Connor is this movie's Sam! He remembered to bring rope! *sniggers* Was tickled that Smecker's take on this scene was the same as mine. Also, Murph's (?) reaction to Rocco's use of the word fuck was almos the exact same as mine! *snert*
I loved when they told Rocco that they had to go to Mass in the morning because they were on the lam. LOL!
Was the scene where the cat got killed really necessary? *shakes head at movie*
I thought the script really died a gruesome death towards the end. When they actually contacted Smecker directly to talk about the super hitman who was after them?! Then Smecker tells them to "be careful??!!" *glares* Then a COURTHOUSE HIT!!! And cops everywhere. With the sight line advantage on them. *I* could have dropped them from the places those cops were standing on the balcony. And you can't tell me that this wouldn't be a high security venue, with a mob boss of that magnitude on trial. Give me a break! And the closing scene in the courthouse was a lot over the top.
And… And… Good God! Their father!!!!! *CK has coniption fit*
This movie was certainly slashed up, in a bondage, pain and bloodplay kind of way.
Lots of people have mentioned the deleted ice and phone call scene, but I would pick out the orgasmic simultaneous waking in the jail and Murph's reaction to the dying moments of Rocco as the two biggest slashy moments.
This movie's real genius is creating a kind of physical intimacy between the principal characters. I am certainly not the first person to notice the synchronicity of the brothers. They dress alike, they work together, they live together, the move together, they dream identical dreams, they speak the same words, they kill together. The movie uses violence and pain as a substitution for the sex act in the cauterization scene, during the brothers' various hits. In the cellar when Rocco dies. Blood instead of semen. You'd have to be blind not to get it. And it really works. The tension is there, not sex, but almost, and *that* is where slash comes from, right?
My final take? I will watch this movie again. I liked it, despite it's gaping plot holes and complete unbelieveability. I will be hiding it from The Husband, who would hate it with a passion for all sorts of reasons that I can't mention here out of respect for Husband's privacy. But was a good use of $10.
Link to a good pictoral guide to the plot.
So last night, while working for the Boss, I put the disc in and opened up a screen in LJ to make notes, something I haven’t done while watching television since I finished my Capstone course at Carolina. That said, bear with me folks, it’s gonna be a long haul, and there are no screen caps (more’s the pity).
VERY VERY VERY major spoilers to follow.
So, first, I gotta be me. I can't fight it. Do you suppose the brothers are lottery winners? The greencard lottery was set up by JFK to enable more Irish to come to this country, and at least initially it was either only for Irish, or heavily favored them. Or do you suppose they are illegal? They are meatpackers, too. On presumes that would be a heavily unionized industry. Hard to believe that the two of them, together, can't do better than that nasty little hole where they live. I could imagine they might send all their cash back home to Mom, but she's not doing that great, either.
The brothers. First of all, must say that I was pleasantly surprsied by the high quality of acting they both manage. For a dinky litte action flick with two barely knowns as the leads, the acting in the whole thing was pretty good. Score one for the movie. It is interesting that they are twins, but not identical. One almost wonders why the scriptwriter/director bothered. They could just as easily be close brothers. Seems like too much backstory to me. However, one thing - they do the twin thing and dress alike. But since they aren't identical, it doesn't come off as cute and silly like when identicals do it, it comes off as a uniform. And speaking of clothes, it's easy to see why Mr. Reedus used to work for Prada. Man, the boy looks good in clothes!
Yes, it sounds like Russian to me, but I don't think there were many real Russians in this film. All the Russian extras in The X-Files are Russian. And the brothers, well, they speak Russian with heavy Irish accents. At least, that's how it sounds to me! Not that my Russian isn't 10 years out of use now… Was highly amused by the Russo-Italians.
This movie has moments of excellence. I thought the presentation of the various vigilante killings in reverse order was very effective, particularly the first time they did it - showing the dead gangsters in the alley, Smecker reconstructing the events, then showing the actual events as they occurred. It was fun and interesting, even after you knew what was happening, to try to figure it out with Smecker. And before you say anything, this movie was a year *before* Memento.
Also, I thought their baptism in the jailhouse was unexpected, effecting, and very well done. I saw the water dripping down from the ceiling and immediately think of the toilet water from their broken toilet. So I'm flinching, watching this probably foul, filthy water fall down on them, and then they have this simultaneous esthatic religious experience. Very well done. And an interesting baptism.
Dafoe's character was the big miss in this movie, I think. He was completely unbelieveable, as were the local police. Smecker was unbelievable just because he was way, way too over the top. Having a working FBI agent conducting a symphony of violence at every crime scene just seems unrealistic to me. I suppose you could argue that this guy was clearly some kind of genius expert in violent crime, so maybe understandably eccentric, but I'm not sure I'm buying in. However, thought his homosexuality was very well handled. He was gay the way most of the gay men I know are gay - it's obvious if you are looking for it, but it doesn't take over their whole personalities, it's not Hollywood flaming. They're just guys. And I was amused that it actually served a purpose in the plot.
Smecker was almost completely over the top, particularly as the movie went on. However, one scene I really did like was the side-by-side scene, where they showed the events as Smecker, in parallel and present in the scene, was figuring out what was happening. Though Smecker's breakdown at the end of the scene was really out there.
And I'm sure there are cops this dumb in the world. But on-screen, not believable. Just sayin'. They don't have to be brilliant, but these guys…
And are we really supposed to buy into an FBI agent coming over to the side of a couple of vigilantes? These are preofessional law enforcement agents. Sure, Smecker tells the priest that the brothers are doing what he can't - cutting through the red tape and killing the bad guys. And maybe he's in a particularly frustrating field, because he specializes in organized crime. But what about the killing of the two innocent bystander perverts in the porn salon. Because, yeah, I know, you wouldn't want to find out any guy you knew was going to a place like that, but paying to wank off while you watch some dancer ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE GLASS - not exactly a death penalty offense, you know? I mean, these guys weren't even having sex with whores when they got killed. They were just pathetically touching themselves, with a little live entertainment. If you were an FBI agent inclined to be sympathetic, wouldn't the deaths of these guys, and possibly the bartender, remind you that violent criminals are violent criminals and they need to be dealt with like every other violent criminal? Of course, you could argue that this genuis violent crime analyst is actually so deep into the brothers' heads that he realizes that they are on a holy mission to destroy evil and punish the guilty. That would explain what brought him to the church. That would explain his confidence that they would not harm the innocent (though I would argue that they actually DID kill a couple of "innocents" already).
The question is, of course, what do we really think of the brothers' vigilantism? Rocco is clearly corrupt, and I would argue that he *had* to die, within the rational of this film's universe, because he was clearly more than willing to join the side of evil. He came along with the angels for a little revenge trip, then got what was coming to him. The brothers, though, really do seem to be more or less just good guys. But then, they're talking with Rocco, and he asks them who they plan to kill. Pimps? Drug dealers? It's convenient that their first killings are in self-defense, and their second is essentially an assassination of some powerful, evil men. But do we really trust their judgment, after they killed the two random perverts and seem to think that any minor infringement deserves death? *shrugs* This is not a particularly deep movie, and I don't think that we can realistically expect it to deal with complicated issues like this, and the interviews at the end were a little bit of farce, but it does go to what we are supposed to think of the brothers' quest.
Heh. I really liked the scene in the air duct. I have always thought it was insanely stupid, how scriptwriters use airvents as magic conduits to everywhere you want to go. You might as well be using teleportation or transporter beams, for the amount of realism you get with a jaunt through the air ducts. So, first they get lost. Then they start bickering because it is uncomfortable and they realize how stupid it is. THEN, quite realistically, the duct, filled with 400 pounds or so of cute guys and their equipment (*snert*), collapses! And I loved the thing with the rope. Snorted snot all over myself laughing at that scene. And now, to your great alarm, an LOTR reference. Connor is this movie's Sam! He remembered to bring rope! *sniggers* Was tickled that Smecker's take on this scene was the same as mine. Also, Murph's (?) reaction to Rocco's use of the word fuck was almos the exact same as mine! *snert*
I loved when they told Rocco that they had to go to Mass in the morning because they were on the lam. LOL!
Was the scene where the cat got killed really necessary? *shakes head at movie*
I thought the script really died a gruesome death towards the end. When they actually contacted Smecker directly to talk about the super hitman who was after them?! Then Smecker tells them to "be careful??!!" *glares* Then a COURTHOUSE HIT!!! And cops everywhere. With the sight line advantage on them. *I* could have dropped them from the places those cops were standing on the balcony. And you can't tell me that this wouldn't be a high security venue, with a mob boss of that magnitude on trial. Give me a break! And the closing scene in the courthouse was a lot over the top.
And… And… Good God! Their father!!!!! *CK has coniption fit*
This movie was certainly slashed up, in a bondage, pain and bloodplay kind of way.
Lots of people have mentioned the deleted ice and phone call scene, but I would pick out the orgasmic simultaneous waking in the jail and Murph's reaction to the dying moments of Rocco as the two biggest slashy moments.
This movie's real genius is creating a kind of physical intimacy between the principal characters. I am certainly not the first person to notice the synchronicity of the brothers. They dress alike, they work together, they live together, the move together, they dream identical dreams, they speak the same words, they kill together. The movie uses violence and pain as a substitution for the sex act in the cauterization scene, during the brothers' various hits. In the cellar when Rocco dies. Blood instead of semen. You'd have to be blind not to get it. And it really works. The tension is there, not sex, but almost, and *that* is where slash comes from, right?
My final take? I will watch this movie again. I liked it, despite it's gaping plot holes and complete unbelieveability. I will be hiding it from The Husband, who would hate it with a passion for all sorts of reasons that I can't mention here out of respect for Husband's privacy. But was a good use of $10.
Link to a good pictoral guide to the plot.
