I'd like to start this post out with a little background . . . I am 17 however I am FAR more mature than my age signifies and I am very well versed in cult classic movies. It seems to me that you watched this movie not with the intention of actually enjoying the movie but rather to find items in it to generate controversy, for instance the whole violence trip, the violence was integral in this movie. It was necessary for it to be gratuitous too. I know it sounds like I am just a teenager out for blood but it is actually the opposite. I detest unnecessary violence but the violence in this movie had to be truly in depth to accentuate the reasons and motives behind the brother’s mindsets. As for the violence they themselves perpetrated that was not gratuitous at all. It was important; it showed one of the many ways people of this world react to crime. If a mindset like these brother's dint exist there would be no angry mobs, but there are. When people are confronted by something that is so against their beliefs, it is painful to watch they find themselves angry and violent. It’s a fact of human nature. But I spend too much time on the violence, let us move on to another point; the brother's acting itself. I believe that them behaving almost, as you say, "robotic" is intentional. Think of it not as if they are actors but as if they were real people. You are constantly confronted by the fact that the world you know is becoming more and more violent and ethically degraded, then you also find that our legal system is almost made to HELP the criminals get off. What happens is that you become depressed by your situation, which is what they showed in the beginning of the movie. However you may notice (if you haven’t already judged the brothers by their first impression) that as the movie goes on they slowly become more and more animated as they realize that there is a way for them to change this sick world we call home. The problem I think you had was that you looked at the first 20-30 minutes of this film and decided that they were bad actors. So instead of paying attention and watching them grow and fill out, you focused on Dafoe's character, which I must agree is an EXTREMELY well done character. I think that him doing such a good job eclipses the ways that the brothers become more like people and less like dolls.

I must disagree on a particular point in our review though. I just finished watching this movie for the second time and it seems to me that the action you describe

"We learn what went down from Dafoe himself as he is superimposed over the action describing the crime scene as bullets fly past in slow motion, hitting bodies, tearing flesh, and splattering blood on the surroundings"

Only happens in the last of the three re-enactments. The other two are first told by Dafoe and then shown while they were happening. But that is all I wanted to say on that, not a big point but one that I wanted off my chest.

Your review to me was slightly short sighted and I must say it completely misses some of the best points of the film. For instance, at the end when the father says, "the question is not how far we will take this but whether your conviction and your faith are enough to let us take it as far as we need to."
This scene was not meant to be a battle with the creator of pulp fiction. It was meant to relate the fact that these people were so dead set in their conviction that they would not look at it as if they should limit themselves. They should look at it as if they should take this as far as it is physically and mentally possible for them TO go. The last line was about them killing bad guys, but it was also meant as a statement on human nature. When you believe in something it is not a question of how far SHOULD you go but rather a question of how far you CAN go.

I hope I placed my arguments in a rational well thought out form.

Also I hope to have swayed at least some of your convictions on this movie.

The way I view it is if I got you to go and watch this movie again just to prove me wrong I have won. Because if you do watch this movie you will realize that at least some of my points are correct.

I would really LOVE to hear from you at my e-mail address (NekroNik1@Yahoo.com) about your response to this letter because I am absent minded and I will most likely forget that this site exists so I will not check reply posts and that saddens me.

Way to go Nik. You have a great understanding of film (particularly this one) and posses the gift of being able to put your thoughts in words.

This will be more of a verbal rant than it will be of a discussion of Boondock Saints and for that I apologize, but I'd like you to know more about what bothers me about the root of the story of Boondock Saints.

I understand your point about the violence in Boondock. The violence is the driver or the stimulus behind what makes the brothers do what they do. And that kind of is my point too. It is a vicious cycle that we have gotten into. It is a fact that in the last 20 years (within your lifetime) the world is a more violent place. Not saying that there is more crime (although it's a fact that that is true too, but beside the point) but that the crimes are of a more violent nature. Research shows that it stems from the exposure to or the desensitization to the visual aspects of violence. in the 50s 60s and 70s (before my time by the way) there were violent crimes but just not as many and in the movies they did not show bullets actually hitting bodies, bats actually hitting heads, fists actually hitting faces etc. etc. They used jump cuts of smoke coming from the gun and then a body falling to the ground or already on the ground.

There actually was time when it was a jarring scene to show someone dieing on screen. People would actually be deeply disturbed by seeing someone laying dead on a hospital bed even though it was a live actor. The TV show Gunsmoke always caught hell as being overly violent and they never showed someone actually being shot.

There is stuff on televison today that would not have been shown in movies. The Hollywood production code would not have allowed it. As more and more violence began to be shown on screen and video games began to become more and more violent, everything was kicked up a notch.

People should have a right to be as violent as they want to be on the screen and to make the video games as violent as they want them to be but along with that comes a reciprocal increase in the extremityof the world around us.

You are right, it is more of a maturity issue than it is an age issue. Some mature quicker and more thoroughly than others (I have friends that demonstrate this). You are obviously better equipped to absorb the violence and process it rationally than were your friends Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris. Unfortunately your generation suffers from the actions of these two misguided individuals in the same way that peace-loving Muslims now suffer from the actions of muslim extremists who are not true muslims.

There are many good messages and artistic qualities to Boondock. Some I point out in my review and some i don't. A lot of them are brought to my attention in everyone's comments on this board. You do indeed make some good points that in the past I had not considered. My comments regarding the way the crimes are revealed is actually one of the film's strong points. Even though as you say it is actually only the last three crime scenes, this is a unique storytelling method and one that must be commended.

One thing you must understand is that there are a lot of people who are not emotionally or psychologically equipped to absorb and process the violence ina rational manner. Just like we are now finding out that young kids who are sexually molested as youngsters or young teens grow up with deep psychological scarring that never goes away. They were not emotionally able to deal with the act of sexuality and therefore it manifests itself in irrational ways in later years. There are people who will see this movie who aren't developed enough psychologically to process it and it will harm them in bad ways. Is there a way to keep adult materials out of the hands of people who shouldn't see it? What is a good answer to this question?

Literature and cinema suffer from the acts of a few individuals and that's just a fact
Taxi Driver - John Hinckley
Catcher in the Rye - Mark David Chapman
Klebold and Harris - Basketball Diaries

Censorship is not the answer. Censorship will kill art. But what do we do as a society to keep these materials from being inspiration to disturbed individuals. A hard point to answer. As we know from David Koresh who used the Bible as devious inspiration and Muslim Extremists who the Koran as a tool for the justification of violence.

There are actual comments and postings on this board and in the poll comments of individuals who think that Boondock is meant to be an uplifting story. It actually effects them in a happy or joyous manner. These are the ones who are missing the point. The story is not about feeling good that we can take matters into our own hands. That is the exact opposite of what the movie tells us.

The point of the Brothers Mcmannus actually coincides with my point. What do we do about a violent world that is beginning to effect all of us. Everyone acts differently. Some act angry, some are hurt by it some close themsleves up into a little shell. BS gives an answer or a solution that I happen to disagree with at its foundation. However, i will say, that it does say something about the impact of the movie that it can generate the kind of discussion and emotion that we are all expressing after seeing the movie.

Cheers
Veritas and Aequitas to you all.
Frank

I think it would be good to kill everyone that is bad in society.. if you disagree then in my opinion your a fool. It would get rid of everything that is keeping society down and let us grow.

Veritas, isn't that essentially what we already do with the death penalty? We kill everyone who is bad for society after a consensus is gained by a jury of peers.

Or are you saying that we need a jury of two with guns and a bad attitude to kill everyone who is bad for society in the view of those two individuals?

Is taking matters into our own hands the answer to the problem?

To Veritas - So, who determines who a "bad" person is? Is it someone who commits a crime?

What if it's someone stealing bread for their starving family? They're stealing, they're obviously bad...

Surely you remember when Murph said "Do not steal, Do not kill, Do not rape"... so, if you're going to follow The Saints' example, the man should be shot on the spot?

------------------------------------------

To JiggyJam - The death penalty is really a joke these days. Someone gets sentenced to death, and then spends the next twenty years in a prison cell during appeals, eating three square meals a day, and watching TV on a better cable package than I'll ever have.

Maybe we don't need the exetremity of a jury that's cocked and locked... but if we're going to have a death penalty, it really should be a bit harsher.

-------------------------------------------

Personally, I don't believe in the death penalty. It's too slow and painless. Anyone who's done something bad enough to merit the penalty should be kept alive, given just enough crackers and water to survive, and spend the rest of his life doing hard labor.

Maybe the government could bring back the old chain gang system, and have them do landscaping in my... err... citizen's homes. Hehehe.


Samuel Haye, 19
Dreading Yard-work in Pensacola, FL

HAHAHA at the death penalty.. takes millions and millions of dollars to get those scum to fry.

If you do something "bad" like stealing then you should die.. why not? Gets rid of some scum.. Stealing is to accepted now a days.. in High School all I heard was people talking about what they stole and this and that. It is pathetic. Everyone in prison should be slayed on the spot.

to Sam - You may feel like the death penealty is a joke, but what you are saying is that someone should not have access to the appeals process. It's an unfortunate fact that it takes that long for the appeals process to run its course. The courts are jammed up with so many crimes. The worst thing that couls happen would be for someone who is innocent to be executed. If it takes 10 years to ensure this, then so be it. As long as there is a death penalty, they must have access to appeals. You are right though, maybe the fear of death has no effect on people. But your solution is no good either. We can't put people on crackers and water. Here are your choices - death penalty with appeals or a lifetime of inprisonment with hot meals and cable. Which do you choose?

-----------------------
to Veritas - you just lost all credibility with that last comment and you lose your credibility to claim the greatness of BS as well. Nobody can take you seriously now. "If you do something "bad" like stealing then you should die.. why not?" That is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard anyone say. Sounds like you want to live in a third world country or something. It's this juvenile thought process that leads so many people into thinking that what the Brother s McMannus do is the correct thing to do.

"But your solution is no good either. We can't put people on crackers and water. Here are your choices - death penalty with appeals or a lifetime of inprisonment with hot meals and cable. Which do you choose?"


I'm just curious as to why exactly we can't do this? Because it be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment? If that is the reasoning, then this is definately what I'd like to see done. Even if you don't cut them down to bread and water, prisons are still way too much like country clubs (well, except for the whole dropping the soap thing... and maybe even some country clubs for that too.. heh).

When I think of the word punishment, I don't see cable television. I don't see three full square meals a day. I don't see a library where you can get a full education on taxpayer dollars. Hell, maybe I should go kill someone. This is sounding more and more like an improvement.

As naive as it may sound, if someone is locked up, I want them to think about what they've done. I know, I know... just like Dad used to say when he sent you to your room, but still, they're not there because they merit some sort of reward. There's a reason we have so many repeat offenders these days.

In my lil fantasy world, where everything would be perfect, we would have a system that would be something like this:


Murderers, Rapists, or other Sexual/Violent Offenders would go to a maximum security prison and serve their time. Harshly. I was exaggerating when I said crackers and water, of course they have to be fed semi-decently, but that's the only basic human need they get. The food is brought to the cell and they eat there. No silverware. No TV or radio of any kind. No pens, pencils, or paper kept in cell on a regular basis. If you want to write something, you must ask for what you need, be approved for it, and monitored while you write it. No more community showering. Each cell has a drain in the center of the floor, and a shower overhead. You're allowed five minutes of warm water, per day. ... well, I think you get the general idea. I want them to actually consider not committing a crime when they get out. If it's a life sentence, then I hope they suffer for the rest of their pathetic existance.


I do have another set-up entirely for other type of criminals... but really, I'm just too damned tired to type it up... heh...


Flame Away,

Sam

To me what they do in the movie is a correct thing to do. You would rather have your tax money spent by trying a guy for the death sentence who has just raped and murdered a mother of 3 children and spend millions of dollars for that scum to even have a trial. All our money spent on the law system which is filled with loopholes for those pieces of shit to get off free. They diserve a gun down there mouths.

Are you serious? You have to be joking! So let me get this straight - you are advocating that we not use a trial by jury system? That we just assume someone is guilty and then kill them. This is more riduculousness from Boondock Saints fans.

The right to a trial by jury is one of the founding principles upon which America was formed. Since we're going to take the right to a trial by jury away from you why don't we also take the right to carry guns away from you. And let's also take away your right to free speech. Let's even go further and censor all movies and art. I guess the first movie we need to ban is the Boondock Saints. It makes people say ridiculous stuff like this. What a stupid movie this must be to draw fans like this.

Way to go Boondock Saints fans. You all are making a great case for this movie.

I hope this person is just trying to bait someone in and I fell for it. If people really feel this way, God help us all!

Actually you are correct. I think I'm done wasting my time on this forum.. I figured you people all think your so intellectual so it would be fun to just fuck with you and make you all spaz over a forum about a movie that has nothing to do with anything!

The point is it is a movie! You people need to fucking realize it is just a MOVIE! It is meant to get your mind off shit for the 2 hours that you watch it or however long it is. That is what any movie does. If you let a little movie effect the way you live then you really have fucking issues and should admit yourself to a mental hospital or just whack your head against the wall a few times and hope it knocks some sense into you.

Cya later people.. just remember its all fun and games till somebody gets hurt.

Yea, I agree....terrible movie!

I think that the statement made by the brothers in the courtroom scene near the end of the movie has been taken a little bit out of context. Remember that this prayer was handed down to their father before them, by his father before him, etc. Things were much different back then, and (durring the course of the movie at least), we never saw the saints waiting outside a convenience stores to gun down a kid who slipped a bag of doritos under his coat. The people they executed were all multiple offenders; there was no chance of killing an innocent person. They knew who they were killing. This movie is NOT advocating killing anyone who breaks any little law, only the select few that have been doing it on a very large scale for all of their lives.

If anyone still thinks this way (taalking about every arguement brought up here & in other threads) you people should all relax, the main thing I get out of this movie is a fcuking good perve. Damn Norman Reedus & Sean Patrick Flanery are HOT! & they get angry & have accents & it's just WOW! So if anyone still feels inclined to look so far into this movie that they don't even realise they're WAY off the point of the movie then just wake up to yourself & enjoy the perve (if you a chick) & the release that a movie like this gives. & on the note of violence, I heard a good quote the other day, "After watching a Lexus add some people go out & buy a Lexus, other people don't" (or something to that effect) it was from "Bowling for Columbine" I think.

I seriously can not for thel ife off me see anything "real" in this thread.
I have to agree with Jos, you watch this movie for a good perve (yay to that SPF and NR) A laugh (Rocco, Greenly, Duffy and Dolly) and that is where the story ends.
I seriously don't think TD wrote this movie so others would form oppinions about how this movie "is right".
Seriously people it is a movie nothing more and nothing less. A means off entertaintment.