|
How to make Boondock Saints in ten easy steps. 1. Shove Pulp Fiction and Taxi Driver in a blender. 2. Strain out all personality either film had. 3. Remove plot, add nothing. 4. Add melodrama. 5. Plug in as many idiosyncrasies as possible. 6. Replace twisted morality with juvenile knee-jerk morality. 7. Cast TV actors. 8. Cast comedian known for acerbic wit, give him no lines. 9. Make sure style outweighs substance by at least 5:1 10. Forget to write ending. I'd end with "profit" but I doubt that. 1.5/5 because I laughed the whole time.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
While as somewhat of an Irishophile I really want to like this movie, I have issues with it that a lot of other people here seem to share. For one, its wanton nihilism leaves me a little sore. I mean, can any good ever come from believing that a deity wants you to murder people at your own diiscretion? Isn't that the same reasoning that caused 9/11? I understand all action movies hold human life to be fairly disposable, but this movie in particular tread on my delicate sensibilities. Also, the 'edgy' dialogue, especially that of the Italian comrade of the Irish brothers, is aggravatingly insipid. As people have been saying, it's very much trying to be Tarantino-esque, but ultimately comes short. That's not to say there aren't some cool things about this movie. I think this is one of the quintessential Willem Dafoe roles, not because it's superbly acted, but because this is a character that only Willem Dafoe would ever play. He just does well in a hammed-up cheesey action environment (Green Goblin, for example). Boondock is what made me notice him as an actor. Anyway, I liked this movie a bit when I first saw it, but the more I think about it the less I want to like this movie. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 05:31
|
|
|
I enjoyed it. The DVD is well worth is just for the phone call from their mom. Not a great movie, but fun to watch every now and again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2004 01:31
|
|
|
Excellent, excellent movie. Willem Dafoe is just perfect, there is no better Dafoe acting job that surpasses this; and anybody who is a fan knows that that is saying a whole lot. The premise is also, I thought, a very interesting and original one. The crime mystery is very popular, but I've never seen it done this way. Also, even though the story is great and with all the violence, gore, and cursing, this is one funny movie. This mainly stems from the fact that the brothers, Norman Reedus and Sean Patrick Flannery, are completely clueless as to being murderers or even criminals in any way. Willem Dafoe is also a riot as the effeminite, gay Agent Paul Smecker (I already mentioned him, but the performance is just THAT good it deserves a second mention. Amazing movie, I always recommend it to everybody. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2004 07:13
|
|
|
This movie is trying too hard to be Reservoir Dogs while completely missing what made Reservoir Dogs a great film. That being said, the movie was entertaining if you can keep yourself from getting pissed off at it for its many moments of retardedness. The first time I saw it, I was very unimpressed because my friend had hyped it up so loving much. Also I might add the scene where brothers and the funnyman have the shootout with the Duke on the front porch was so loving stupid and lame I couldn't stop laughing at it. They just stand there and shoot at eachother for fucks sake! How the hell is that exciting? This movie trys way too hard to be cool and dramatic in too many scenes. It still had some good lines though and some memorable things about it, so I give it a very generous 2.5/5 ZetsurinPower fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jun 13, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2004 20:36
|
|
|
This is an excellent movie. Though some may call it campy, I found it entertaining for the entirity of the movie. My friends and I regularly can be heard proclaiming 'gently caress! rear end!' 5/5 Edit: This film easily beats Reservoir Dogs
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2004 21:24
|
|
|
My second favorite movie of all-time, trailing only Scarface and Al Pacino's brilliant performance. This movie really has everything that I look for in a movie. Drama, humor, action, etc. The character development is there. The dialogue is there. It's just a great loving movie. Fantastic even. Beginning to end this movie had me drawn in and anticipating the next scene. Willem Defoe is brilliant. There are a lot of things that you pick up which each viewing of the movie as well. 5/5 Not too many movies do I enjoy as much as this one. I highly recommend it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2004 22:17
|
|
|
This movie is good, but certainly over rated. It suffers heavily from cinematic flaws. The use of Fade-Ins and Fade-Outs is painful. The accents are all over the board. There are a few lines that just don't fit with the story, as well as scenes that don't affect the plot. It also has the most overly-dramatic scene ever. And there was A FIRE FIGHT! Despite these flaws, it's still an entertaining movie with a ton of replay value. It's well put together, and it had a pretty unique blend action and comedy. The Boston detectives, although slightly incompetent, provide some great comic relief that fits in naturally with the story instead of being blatantly inserted. Despite it's problems, it's worth at least a rental. The plot is just enough to make you feel smart, but there is enough mindless action that doesn't get bogged down in the symbology of the movie. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2004 03:18
|
|
|
Some really good shoot outs, some funny parts, and plenty of hot vigilante action! 4.5/5 An excellent movie. People here are too hard on it, probably because it's popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2004 20:12
|
|
|
Good god did I hate this movie. It's like watching a 13 year old's concept of what "cool" is. I actively hated every single character. The twins were smug as gently caress and so self-consciously "cool" I wanted to beat the poo poo out of them and take them down a peg. The Italian guy was horribly obnoxious and unfunny. Willem Dafoe was the sole saving point, at least until the godawful "THERE WAS A FIREFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT" scene which he follows up by dressing in drag and making out with a fat man. THIS MOVIE HAS WILLEM DAFOE IN DRAG SHOVING HIS TONGUE DOWN THE THROAT OF A FAT MAN. At that point I was seriously wondering why I was still watching this piece of poo poo, but I managed to stick it out. The action sequences were an utter failure, particularly the shootout in the suburbs where the characters stand 5 feet away from each other and empty 6 goddamn clips and nobody gets hit ONCE. The hotel room had the potential to be cool but the R-rated cut is so horribly edited that they may as well have cut the entire sequence out. I didn't laugh once, though I probably would have laughed at the cat scene if I hadn't seen it a million times already in animated gif form. No, scratch that: this is a perfect example of what a failure this movie is. A cat is accidentally killed, which could be a great setup for a funny scene afterwards in which the characters get ahold of the surrealness of that event, but they just say "OH poo poo SON YOU KILLED A CAT". Fade out. There is exactly one scene I enjoyed: when Dafoe was narrating the events in the house and we see him in the flashback with the other characters. If only the director had shown that sort of wit anywhere else. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2004 22:15
|
|
|
The gay stuff was at first hilarious "Cuddle? What a fag!" "Just pour the drink you fairy gently caress" But it went too far with William Dafoe in drag. That was just too much. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2004 01:12
|
|
|
I'm with Horseface on this one. The movie had a couple clever and darkly funny moments and I know we're not supposed to take it 100% seriously. But even as a violent comedy/crime caper it fails. The amateur screenplay seems messy and lost. Troy Duffy squandered a lot of opportunities. Take the scene where Smecker walks through the aftermath of the poker game/Il Duce shootout. Starts off kind of cool, but then it dissolves into a pointlessly hammy trainwreck. This movie could have really used a scene that establishes why we're supposed to hate the mobsters. Even a violent comedy has to get viewers to sympathize with its characters. Or somehow be interested in what happens. This movie just drops the ball in that regard. There was no reason to root for the McManus brothers any more than the gangsters they shot. Smecker could have easily been an interesting character without being written as a condescending, flamboyant poof. Too many of the attempts at humor were just crass and unfunny. Maybe if I hadn't already seen Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (a much better movie in the same vein), Boondock Saints wouldn't have seemed so bad. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2004 07:55
|
|
|
Most overrated film ever. The Boondock Saints are truly loathsome characters, beleiving that their devout (albeit misguided and hypocritical) beliefs give them free reign to murder anyone who crosses their path. This is actually an interesting premise, but Duffy chooses to celebrate the brother's heavyhanded vigilantism and even justify it, which is ridiculous when you consider they excecute a couple of people for the crime of whacking off in a porno booth!!! . Duffy punctuates his script with profanity in order to disguise the cliche-ridden ineptitude of the dialogue (which is NO better than your average Seagal movie), and his direction can best be described as 'vanilla'. Flashbacks are over-used in another attempt to feign talent, and potentially exciting action sequences are rendered mundane by undynamic camerawork. Watch 'Ghost Dog' for an example of how these sequences should be shot. The performances verge on the comic. Whether this is intentional or not, I don't know - but suffice to say that Ron Jeremy is on par with the rest of the cast. However Willem Defoe deserves special mention, as he hysterically gurns and waves his arms about like a Z-grade Klaus Kinski. His homosexuality is mentioned in every possible instance, to remind us that Troy Duffy has cleverly created a GAY character who is also TOUGH - and therefore is a genius on par with Tarantino, such is his ability to create quirky roles. Troy Duffy is a loving douche, and Boondock Saints is reminiscent of a Tarantino film in that it contains guns and swearing. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2004 19:35
|
|
|
I've not watched a film before that has made me feel quite so undecided. The direction seems to have been carried out with good fun in mind, and some of the dialogue is great. As has already been mentioned, Willem Dafoe is excellent, and his character provides some novel moments. However, the poor accents irritated me severely. The two Irish protagonists weren't too bad, aside from the occasional slip. The Italian mob boss was totally unconvincing. The fact that the film's concept was conceived from a music video answers alot of questions. The scenes seem thrown-together in a slipshod manner. Why have the brothers fluent in so many languages? It doesn't seem to serve any particular purpose, other than to prove they're bright boys, and where this device is used it seems hollow. The plot is bollocks. I'm not sure what the film is trying to say, but it doesn't see it through. Vigilantes are good? Especially vigilantes acting in the name of God? That's just stupid. I think the last laugh is had by the film's creators. The end of the movie features some faux vox-pop reportage, and all of the interviewees say similar things to other contributors to this thread and myself, so one could conclude it's not particularly trying to say anything, other than to give us an excuse to watch some entertaining dialogue, and some well choreographed scenes. I'm tempted to give it a 2, but I'm going with 3, because I did enjoy it. Sulman fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Oct 7, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2004 19:55
|
|
|
I liked this movie, however I feel that sometimes it was trying too hard to be like a tarantino movie, and not working very well at it. Then there was stuff that diddn't make much sense: THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT! that just felt ridicuosly out of place. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2004 23:52
|
|
|
I used to like this movie, but that's changed as I realize how this movie glorifies the vigilantism and how loving WRONG that vigilantism is. It's presented as though morality is black and white; except that the director got it loving wrong. Case in point(I won't mention the porno booth thing, since it's already been mentioned): Rocco "keeps it together" when with the hitman who kills the entire family and burns their house, because he "knew it was his rear end" if he didn't. So he lets the man kill an entire family, and justifies it as that he would die too if he'd tried to stop him. Flash forward to after he finds out that he was set up. He kills Sal, the bartender, because he'd heard about Rocco being set up and hadn't said anything to Rocco. But the bartender is in the same situation as Rocco was; except that there wasn't even a wife and kids involved. It was just Rocco, who was PART OF THE MOB. As far as the bartender is concerned, not only does he have a chance of dying if he talks, he has a chance of dying over a piece of mob poo poo - which is what Rocco is. Yet we're supposed to cheer Rocco on as he commits this act, and laugh at it. I could go on about other problems with acting, plot holes, stupid scenes(FIIIIREFIGHT), but I won't. This particular thing above just irked me greatly the last few times I watched it. Still a decent action/comedy flick if you don't want to take it seriously at all, I guess. 2/5. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Oct 19, 2004 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2004 04:47
|
|
|
I kept hearing nothing but praise for The Boondock Saints from people on the internet. On reflection, that should have been my first clue. If one was to distill the pent-up teen male angst, the videogame-induced desensitization to violence and the "headshot lol" level of intelligence on your average counterstrike forum, and then project it through a post-Tarantino lens of smug, self-conscious faux-cool, you'd get this dreck. Director Troy Duffy even manages to cram in some of the latent homophobia present whereever insecure 13 year old boys gather out of earshot of their parents by wringing (or at least, attempting to wring) laughs from a gay character. Performances were largely forgettable, with only Dafoe making a lasting impression, while the cinematography is strictly of the direct-to-video variety. The direction is sporadically terrible, mostly workman like, and occasionally skillful, such as in the scene where Dafoe appears inside a flashback he is narrating. No doubt apologists of this film will accuse detractors of taking it too seriously or thinking about it too much, but the film is so crashingly unfunny (unless shooting a cat is your idea of wit) the former point is moot, and so assured of it's own profundity (let's quote scripture and speak in latin) as to negate the latter. That leaves only the action scenes, which are mildly entertaining but, in the context of a film about utterly unlikeable, uninteresting vigilantes, are totally devoid of tension. Having said that, somehow the fact that it strives for a somewhat comic tone (even if I think it completely fails), makes it less objectionable than had it been played completely straight. For that, i'll bump it up from terrible, to just pretty bad. 1.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2004 13:30
|
|
|
Some movies just tell you to turn your brain off, and sit back for the ride. True, many of these are so-called "summer blockbusters" where that simply entails watching lots of ridiculous special-effects and melodrama, but this is a different kind of beast. This is the kind of movie where you sit back and watch people with guns and one-liners act like badasses. There's definately a Tarantino-inspired vibe to it all, not least in gun-toting assassins who say prayers before killing people, but in the "realistic-yet-cool dialogue" and chronological disparity manner too. Some will see it as a poor imitation of a Tarantino flick, others will see it as an enjoyable homage to his directing style. It feels very masturbatory at times. Like the director said "Hey, you know what would be loving cool? If this guy holds his guns like this and shoots like this" and so they did it. But you know what? I'm cool with that. A lot of people might find it affronts their delicate cinematic senses, but if I think something's fun, I'll find it fun. It's not a flick for movie snobs, not by a long shots. The backwards storytelling style is interesting. It doesn't try to confuse you or mess around with you, it simply shows the movie from the point of view of one particular character as he attempts to figure out just what's going on. A lot of movies would have used that as a cheap excuse to play mindgames with the viewer, which thankfully they resisted here. Is it a quality cinematic experience? No. It's well made, but it's not going to be classed as high art by anyone over the age of 15. Is it a movie that appeals to you as a guilty pleasure? Yes. You might act like you're above it, but the teenager inside you just KNOWS you want to see a couple of Irish fellows with akimbo Berettas shooting people up while saying latin prayers. You might not admit it afterwards, but you know you enjoyed it. Go on, treat yourself, this movie's a spot of great fun. And Dafoe is great as always, with some hilarious lines that can't be missed. 4.0/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2004 01:00
|
|
|
THIS MOVIE IS A 5/5 GOLDEN CLASSIC. NO EXEPTIONS. "Catch you on the flip side"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2004 06:05
|
|
|
This movie really pissed me off. With all the hype I was expecting some really stylish gunfights, BUT I GOT NOTHING. Most of the "gunfights" is just people standing still and firing their guns in slo-mo. That's just pussying out of trying to do something good. The acting and dialogue was horrible, the comic-relief guy just yelled a lot and made no sense, then the movie ended. I recommend iot if you've seen every other "cool stylish" action movie there is and for some reason want to see the one that got left behind. 2
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2004 07:12
|
|
|
The matrix, Die Hard, future generations will look back on our action movies, but none will be as well known as Boondock Saints. This movie loving ROCKS. NO EXCEPTIONS! The pacing is great, the action is non-stop,but the movie is a little lacking in the inteligence department. Still, 4.75/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2004 06:32
|
|
|
Better than decent flick. Interesting characters, a plot that moves, action, conflict, and a nifty twist in place of a resolution. I like movies with characters that shine like this. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2004 05:07
|
|
|
it's got the depth of a-team, but also the fun. you will find yourself rolling your eyes as the "heroes" defy physics and common sense in fights and brawls. you'll roll your eyes dry when watching dafoe playing dramaqueen detective, and wonder to yourself how many minutes someone would last who tried to pull his BS in RL. however, despite your baby blues having dessicated in their sockets from so much friction, your mouth will be laughing and whooping and hollering if your suspension of disbelief allows. that's why it's love or hate, it's very very fun and very very dumb. put it in the same category in your head as bloodsport, and you can allow yourself to enjoy it. 1/5 for being so dumb, 5/5 for being a great drat action movie. average those for a 3/5. fun or not i could cockslap the makers into oblivion for not making a great action movie into a believable and awesome action movie. you can smell the wasted potential as you initiate the download.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2004 03:54
|
|
|
What can you say about this movie besides "oh baby..."? This is one of the best movies ever. It's awesome, watch it. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2004 07:16
|
|
|
.
exp0n fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jan 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2004 04:04
|
|
|
I thought this movie was loving great. I mean, sure the brothers do some pretty unbelievable stuff, but just because a movie is unrealistic doesn't make it bad (i.e. superman, or, better yet batman). 5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2004 08:41
|
|
|
Unlike many people in this thread who seem to dislike this movie, when I watch a movie, I look for entertainment and little else. Did I find this movie entertaining? Yes. I enjoyed the humor, action, etc. Stop reading so deep into the film. It was fun to watch. 4.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2004 02:00
|
|
|
I love this movie. People who go on about how they don't like the message or the acting or the believability are taking it entirely too seriously. It's got two extremely hot Irish boys, a hysterically overdone gay FBI agent, and lots of goofy accents. It's a comedy, folks. Sure, you may have to have a certain sense of humor to think it's funny, but I think it's fantastic from front to back. It's fun to watch, has a ridiculous amount of one-liners (many of which I can quote), and I've seen it at least 30 some-odd or more times while still loving it every time. The only two things that bug me the least bit about it are Defoe's lips after he shoots that one guy, and how the brothers somehow switch personalities at the very end. Their manner just doesn't jive with how they've acted throughout the movie. A friend of mine analyzed it to say that once the trinity became reunited, they were no longer separate people, which I don't buy. I really liked the ending, and the cat scene is my favorite. I'd murder anyone who even thought about doing such a thing to my cat, but that scene is just great. *blam* *panic* "I can't believe that just loving happened!" "Is it dead?" 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2004 23:15
|
|
|
It feels amateurish, but is still a fun film to watch and not to take seriously (wich is what I think a lot of it's detractors do). There are some good scenes and Dafoe steals the movie. I liked the idea of starting a scene after the action happened and returning in time to see it bit by bit, creating some suspense. Laughed a lot. 3.5
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2004 03:48
|
|
|
10/5 if you don't like this movie, i will cut you, and im not kidding this is one of my all time favorite movies written and directed excellently, and its better than you in over 328904 ways
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2004 07:37
|
|
|
I enjoyed this film because it had guns and humor, it was pretty much a fantastic film, until the end. Once the conflict witht he police is gone there is very little entertainment, because they have gone from having no clue what they are doing to seemingly professionals. The ending was way, way to preachy and dramatic. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2004 22:08
|
|
|
I was really impressed with this movie- genuinely funny in some parts and genuinely serious when it needed to be. Last scene is loving amazing. The only real bad part I noticed was the conversation at the table at Rocco's place was poorly written- like the characters had memorized a speech for the event. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2004 04:20
|
|
|
I like this movie. It's not a great film, It's not marvelous, but it is drastically badass. It makes me laugh, and say "HELL YEAH COOL" 4.5 The last scene is really good, and actually has a meaning, so it's not all violent sweetness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2004 01:16
|
|
|
one of my favorite movies, especially for the soundtrack and the badass factor. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2004 20:28
|
|
|
I'm a huge Tarrantino fan, yet his name never crossed my mind when watching this film. I enjoyed it immensely. Didn't know it was a comedy at first, but once I 'locked' into the film's mentality, I didn't want it to end. Its also hilariously funny, especially Williem Dafoe's performance. For what it is, 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2004 21:26
|
|
|
The execution prayer was one of the coolest most original things I've seen in a long time. One of my favorite movies. . . don't know why it didn't make the theaters. Why don't you make like a tree and ge-ge-get the gently caress out?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2004 05:51
|
|
|
Wow, there's alot of hate for one of my favorite movies ever. The saints is cool for alot of reasons. The main one being the sense of humor applied, you really have to HAVE a sense of humor to get the movie. As one guy said earlier if you arent laughing 10 minutes into the movie, turn it off you wont get it(paraphrased and added to what he said). The action was done beutifally, the only "bad" scene was the Porch battle, simply becuase it was so different from the rest of the movie. That being said Dafoe's preformance DURING the recap was hilarious "THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT*Blam blam*". Other then that one battle I enjoyed all the rest of the action scenes and completely loved just about every joke in the film, again it comes down to type of sense of humor, this is my style so I loved it. I'll go so far as to say it's BETTER then Resivoir Dogs, which truth be told wasnt even half as funny as the Saints or as interesting, way too much of it took place inside the warehouse, where as Saints shifted from location to location. Also everyone dies at the end of Resivor Dogs, it's a lovely ending, and a cop out. I consider any movie where they kill off all the charecters by the end to have lovely endings, I consider it a cop out and lazy. It's not a serious movie, I loathe to use the word "fun" to describe anything, but it is indeed, fun. For me I have seen it a dozen times and it has the center spot in my dvd collection. Is it overrated? sure probably, but to be honest, I hand't even heard of this movie from anyone, working at blockbuster I was cleaning the action section reading boxes that looked interesting, I took it home and fell in love with a classic. All that being said, I'd venture to say anyone who didnt get/like the humor in this movie im sure are huge fans of Adam Sandler and Ben Stiller, which is to say, you have no idea what comedy is. Oh and, Them skipping all the "beurocratic" nonsense, I completely agree with. I laugh at the fool who said the criminals have rights, the second you become a criminal, you lose all those rights in my book. SageSepth fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Dec 13, 2004 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2004 10:40
|
|
|
When I first saw it, I liked it for Willem Dafoe's performance, plus a couple of the action scenes. The dialogue is very poorly-written (some of Smecker's lines literally made me cringe; he's supposed to be smart, for Christ's sake), and with the exception of Willem Dafoe, the acting SUCKS. It's painfully apparent that Troy Duffy had no clue what he was doing, and if you look at the deleted scenes, it appears he was saved by his editor. I'd give this two stars for Willem Dafoe, 0.5 for the action, and -1 star for the incredibly bad Irish accents. 1.5
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2004 16:38
|
|
|
quote:SageSepth came out of the closet to say: Agree with almost everything except the ending comments, as you seem to be contradicting yourself. The movie is fun and isn't trying for a serious social commentary with the ending, "BUT IS WHAT THEY'RE DOING RIGHT?". The movie has an excellent style (and music) which kept me drawn in for the most part while still not being over-the-top and distracting from the jokes and action. I really don't see any evidence of a tarintino knock-off except for the way the story progresses with the backwards explainations but it is unfair to call anything non-linear automatically "Tarantino". It may be borrowing but it is certainly not an attempt at emulating. So many great one-liners and scenes.. The bartender who kept on loving up sayings, the amazingly cool prayer + killing juxtaposition, Dafoe's "AND THEN THERE WAS A FIREFIGHT" scene was amazingly dramatic to the point of comedy, the characters despite being 2d and unrealistic were cool(especially "the duke"). 4.5/5 not a classic but definitely entertaining. Pros: Stylistic action, excellent music, good lines of dialogue, funny Cons: Bad lines of dialogue, poor acting at points
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2004 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:40 |
|
|
I wouldn't call this a bad movie, but it's very over rated. It also has that 'idiot attraction' like Scarface, that draws stupid people to it for some reason, which just makes it annoying, much like how my comma use is annoying some of you now. I thought it felt low budget, poorly acted, and certainly not worth any cult status, which it only got because it was a semi-indie film. I saw this like a year ago and don't remember much at all about the plot, and I don't recall there being a girl in there I'd like to have sex with. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2004 00:18
|
|