The Boondock Saints (1999)

One day when I was attending Central Michigan University, way back circa 2002, a friend of mine from down the hall came to my dorm room. In his hand was a burned DVD. He holds it up and asks me, "Dude, Pat, I have this movie called "The Boondock Saints." Ever seen it?" I told him I had not even heard of it. I see a small sparkle appear in his eyes as a smile creeps across his face. He then tells me, "You have got to see it. We're watching it right now." So we did.

I think that's the experience most people had with "The Boondock Saints." After essentially going straight-to-DVD, as the only initial theatrical release it got was on 5 screens for one week, the film garnered a pretty big fan following based entirely on word of mouth. Eventually being a part of that fandom would lead to a somewhat embarrassing predicament as 14 year-olds and Hot Topic kind of ruined it for everyone else by going the "Scarface" route and putting the Saints on everything because it makes whoever is wearing it totally hardcore and gangster. But if we step away from that there's still a pretty good movie to be found underneath all that marketing, teen wangst, black trenchcoats, and people flaunting their 7% Irish heritage by getting Celtic tattoos and wearing a "Boondock Saints" hoodie.

"The Boondock Saints" is about Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy (Norman Reedus) MacManus, two deeply religious Irish brothers who, after running afoul of the Russian mob after an innocent bar fight, decide it is their duty to destroy the evil in Boston by shooting it in the head. Of course they decide it's ordained by God that they do so, which makes it all okay. Using their mob errand boy friend, Rocco (David Della Rocco) as a walking Rolodex of people to kill, they start cleaning up the streets of every high and low level mobster they can get their hands on, all while the Boston police and FBI agent Paul Smecker (Willam Dafoe) play catch up and try to figure out just who in the hell is killing all these criminals.

The hits carried out by the MacManus brothers are always told in flashbacks as Smecker and the cops investigate the crime scenes, attempting to piece together the events that went on. These get more elaborate as the film goes on, leading to the final one which finds the film at its most artsy, showing Smecker actually walking through the shootings, narrating as the scene plays out around him in slow motion like he's not even there. And it really highlights how smart Smecker is, but also how easily he can make mistakes - like 1 guy with 6 guns turning into 6 guys with guns. While it may be a touch too much on occasion, overall I found it to be an interesting narrative device.

Umm...symbolism? Because he was in "Platoon?"

That's not what people remember about "The Boondock Saints," though. What they remember, and rightly so, is how funny it is. While it's true that at its core this is a pretty dark film which explores the nature of killing under the guise of religious righteousness, and does so without giving any clear-cut answers as to whether or not what our heroes are doing is right (although I think the way it's written implies the movie thinks it is), nobody is going to be thinking too much about all that deep stuff when the cast is so damn funny and likeable.

Flanery and Reedus are absolutely charming as the brothers, and have an amazing chemistry with each other. Their boyish jubilance over their new job would be disturbing if they weren't so funny. And as Smecker points out, their action-movie inspired tactics are so ridiculous and unprofessional that the only reason they succeed is because it IS so far out there that it's got a chance. And whether or not you count their survival on luck or divine intervention, you can't help but like these guys. Even if they are crazy.

It's okay. The voices in our heads told us we should do this. (Our heroes!)

I could just go down the cast list and say "They were awesome" to be honest. David Della Rocco is the only person more likable than the MacManus', and is most people's favorite character for a good reason, as he's hysterical. Rocco is one of the best loveable schmuck characters I can remember from recent film history, and he's played with such passion and gusto that whenever he's on screen the film gets this energy that's undeniable.

But to be perfectly honest, I really think it's Willem Dafoe who runs away with this movie. Even from a story standpoint it's just as much Smecker's story as the brother's. We are following him for a good chunk of the movie, sometimes more often than the MacManus', and by the end he's really functioning as the soul of the film. He's smart enough to figure these guys out, and he's probably good enough to stop them if he wanted to, but he has to ask himself if that's what he really wants to do. And being arguably the best actor in the cast, his performance is fiery, humorous, and tortured all at the same time.

Did I mention you get to see Willem Dafoe in drag? It is amazing.

I also love Bob Marley as the resident dunder-head Detective Greenly, and even freaking Ron Jeremy was incredibly memorable. They, along with the rest of the cast turn what could have been a very average crime thriller and turn it into a very, very funny movie. Oddly enough the one guy who isn't funny at all, and in fact is the only character played completely dead serious, is the the most prolific comedic actor of the bunch, Billy Connolly.

Speaking of humor, "The Boondock Saints" is one of the most endlessly quotable films I've ever seen. Unfortunately, much like "The Big Lewbowski," the film is laced with so much profanity that it's difficult to do so in public. But whether it's Greenly assuring his fellow cops that he will do no f@#kin' bagel fetching, or Rocco asking "Is it dead?" there are so many golden lines throughout that the whole film becomes something like a sing-along.

Alright, all together now: "Well, name ONE THING you're gonna need the rope for!" Now stop. That's annoying.

I've heard this film criticized often by people who label it as an immature, unfunny, over-stylized rehash of every vigilante justice movie ever made, and as such is a terrible film. I've never understood the seething hatred this movie brings out of some people. while I understand the argument as to it being unoriginal and low-brow at times. It's just as stylized as any other modern action movie that uses slow-motion on occasion, which doesn't make it bad since the slow-motion is well done, and humor is subjective. I find "The Boondock Saints" to be hilarious, personally, but I can understand someone thinking otherwise. I have a hunch that it's more that they can't stand the fanbase that worships it, which I totally get because I'm not a huge fan of them either. But it's not fair to take it out on the movie.

Some complain about the slow-motion, and there may admittedly be an abuse of it going on, but seeing as it stays consistent in its use it never really bothered me, and it started to become almost another character. Besides, had the fights not been in slow motion they would have taken 7 seconds and been so confusing and hectic it'd be indecipherable. And I'll take clear, easily comprehended slow-motion over confusing shaky-cam any damn day of the week. And that's a fact. Bitch about it all you want, but at least you know what just happened.

Like I said earlier, I really don't understand why this movie has so many detractors unless they're just out to tear apart a cult movie for no other reason other than not liking the audience for it. I guess you could get yourself in a tizzy over the message of vigilantism, but I don't think the movie is taking itself seriously enough to really look at it that closely. It's supposed to be a really fun time. Which it is.

Just looking at Rocco's face makes me smile.

Now as to the long delayed sequel, that's a conversation for another day...

Check out the trailer for "The Boondock Saints." It's awesomely cheesy and belongs in the early 90's!

THE BOTTOM LINE - I love "The Boondock Saints," even though the hip thing for me to do, as a self-stylized amateur critic is to write it off. Everyone else did. But I like what I like, and this movie puts a smile on my face, and if you've never seen it and aren't turned off by prodigious amounts of profanity and some rather dark humor, I'd highly recommend you give it a shot.

Brave (2012)

I'm going to make a new rule for myself right now, and hopefully it will take. I'll just go ahead and try my best to not assume anything about any movie from now on.

Over the years I've proven to myself that I have a pretty good sense of prediction for what a movie is going to be like, and whether or not I will like it. When you see enough films I guess that's an inevitable side effect. And based on the facts that not only was "Brave" a Pixar film, which I generally find pretentious, the reaction to it had been lukewarm, and also that I was also able to correctly guess the plot nearly point for point after an employee at Blockbuster merely told me the setup, can you blame me for not really wanting to give it the hour and a half it asked of me?

Perhaps the fact that many Pixar fans found it to be weak-sauce should have been foretelling in what wound up happening, which was that I actually enjoyed "Brave." It's possible that the fact that it lacked that classic Pixar manipulation and preachy nature, the reason I enjoyed it, was the reason everyone else said it was a weaker entry in their body of work.

Let me explain a little about what I mean by "preachy and manipulative." In a Pixar movie, they always seem to have to go out of their way to make it sad. Now, this is a staple in animation. All you have to say are the words "Littlefoot's mother" and I know grown men who will start openly weeping. But with Pixar they really like to crank up the tear factor. For instance, the whole "Toy Story" series is basically about abandonment. It's a downer. I think "Up" was the one that irritated me the most, though. The bit in the opening scene that showed that the wife couldn't have children just seemed unnecessarily sad, because it didn't have anything to do with the rest of the story. It was just there because well...sad.

I just don't think you've earned this at the 4 minute mark of the film, you know?

For me the story of "Brave" contained far fewer of those moments that may just as well have flashed "BE SAD NOW" on the bottom of the screen. It seemed much more organic to me, and the characters were much more believable because they weren't being set up in classic "tear-jerker scene" scenarios. To be fair, those existed, but they never felt superfluous to me. They hit you with those moments when they mattered, not before in an attempt to draw more emotion from you.

Maybe it was the fantasy setting that really did it for me, which I'll admit that I'm partial to, being a nerd. I just think animated movies should be used to showcase fantastic things, not mundane everyday things like toys in a kid's room, as good as the animation is. So when our heroine Merida tears through the woods on horseback and shows off what she can do with a bow, that's the kind of thing I want to see in an animated film. That's why I loved "How To Train Your Dragon." I mean, as thrilling as seeing Mr. Potatohead lose his nose is, it really can't compare with a redheaded chick drilling an arrow dead center through a bullseye while her horse is in mid-leap going full tilt. But that's just me.

Yeah, that's pretty cool I guess. But where's the Barrel O' Monkeys? #notasgoodasToyStory

The story of "Brave" is another cautionary tale of overreacting to problems, and always reading the fine print. Merida, a young tomboy of a princess, is told by her mother, Queen Elinor, that she must be a lady and choose a suitor from among three other clans for political reasons. In typical movie fashion, Merida is mortified at the thought and refuses to go along with it, to the point of "competing for her own hand" in the contest that was to determine the suitor. And of course she kicks their butts. So I guess she's going to marry her own dang self?

Once that plan ends up not holding water and Elinor lays down the law, Merida runs away and stumbles upon a desolate hut in the middle of the woods. There she meets a witch, who can create powerful magic and essentially grant wishes.

 And I think you can see where this is going...

Merida does a silly thing and wishes "that her mother would change." Merida needs lessons in performing pacts with dark entities. The key is specificity. Long story short, Elinor is a bear now.

 That's not what she meant at all, really.

And the rest of "Brave" is really just about Merida and Bear Elinor trying to fix things and you know, make Bear Elinor not be Bear Elinor anymore. There's also the whole thing about loving your parents and realizing that sometimes they do things that are in your own best interest, even if you don't understand it yet. That last part seemed weak though, since the compromise made at the end between Merida and Elinor isn't so much a compromise, and more that Merida gets her way. I mean, it's only an unprecedented upheaval of the ruling class line of succession in a feudal society. What's the worst that could happen?

Oh. Right. Bloody, violent, power struggles.

And for all you medieval history people, think about this. After Merdia, the next ones in line for succession are TRIPLET BROTHERS. Have fun with that, am I right? Truly this land is in for some wonderful times with absolutely no chance to have wars for the throne.

There was also the issue of some of the character designs, which I wasn't a fan of. This was mostly relegated to the leaders of the other clans. On the plus side they were voiced by Craig Ferguson and Robbie Coltrane.

Seriously, is that his head or a boil on top of his shoulders that grew hair and eyes?

Those are just little nitpicks I objected to. Other than that I really liked "Brave" a lot. Surprisingly so, actually. I really liked almost everything about it. It was beautifully animated, it's pretty funny, the setting has a great atmosphere, and it can be pretty intense at parts, especially when the giant evil bear shows up. I really liked that bear, as that character design was unusually morbid for Pixar, what with the spears and arrows hanging out of him. That was pretty sweet.

It's also really touching, and the dynamic between Merida and Elinor is realistic, heartfelt, and very well acted by Kelly Macdonald and Emma Thompson, respectively. Billy Connolly also get props for being awesome, although he really just had to show up for that to happen, since he's Billy Connolly.

And ohmygodDDDDD'AAAAAAAWWWWWOVERLOAD!!!!

So I was very impressed by "Brave," and while I'm not willing to do a turnaround and say that I'm a fan of Pixar, I will give it to them that they now have more than one film I'd care to sit through again. Before it was just "Finding Nemo," but I have to say I think I'd watch "Brave" again before that one. It's got to be the fantasy setting that does it for me. Although "Finding Nemo" is admittedly funnier, I think I've got a new favorite Pixar movie.

And once again, my record of being contrary is upheld! I swear I don't do it on purpose.

No, you're right. She's nowhere near as interesting as a talking cowboy doll.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I really liked "Brave." Pixar has made a really entertaining and heartfelt movie with this, and I normally am pretty underwhelmed by their stuff. And shock of all shocks, it's a story about a young girl WITHOUT A LOVE INTEREST SUBPLOT. Freaking finally. Sign me the hell up. And now that I think about it, "Brave" would be a killer double feature with "How To Train Your Dragon." Nice.