Today over at Big Hollywood, Christian Toto asks if Boondock Saints is a film worthy of the “cult classic” label. There is no question that Boondock Saints has earned its stripes in the “cult” part, you’ll often spot people with wearing T-shirts featuring the McManus brothers brandishing their guns, hanging posters inscribed with their killing prayer, and other such ways of wearing movie fandom on the sleeve. The film has just gotten a tenth anniversary double-dip on Blu-ray, and if this is any sign that movie still has rabid fans ten years down the line, Amazon is having a hard time keeping it on the shelf (at the time of writing this, there are only eleven copies left in stock).
However, I think it’s the “classic” part where Toto raises an eyebrow. The story behind the making of Boondock Saints is far more fascinating than the film itself. It’s all chronicled in the excellent documentary, Overnight, which shows the meteoric rise and fall of the film’s director Troy Duffy. Hungry to find the next Quentin Tarantino, Miramax gave the untested Duffy a deal over the script for Boondock Saints that made the carte blanche given to Orson Welles by RKO for Citizen Kane seem modest by comparison. But before Boondock Saints could even begin shooting, Duffy’s arrogant attitude and abrasive personality killed the dream partnership between Duffy and Miramax. The buzz Duffy had already generated in Hollywood allowed him to move forward without Miramax, making Boondock Saints independently, and while it died on the vine in theaters, it found its following on video, the way most cult movies do.
Had Boondock Saints been made under the Miramax banner, much of its appeal would never have been there to begin with. Like most people who got into the movie, it wasn’t aggressively marketed towards me, it was recommended to me by one of the movie’s rabid fans. This added to the film’s perceived edge, it was like being let in on something big no one else knew about. Being in high school at the time, I was also the right age for it, the movie had quotable dialogue spoken by colorful characters in a violent premise. Seeing two Irish dudes clad in black say a prayer before smoking some gangster scumbag seems like the greatest thing ever when you’re sixteen. Boondock Saints was a classic case of right place, right time, but it hasn’t aged well.
Now that I’m older and have seen (a lot) more films though, the movie seems silly. Boondock Saints is definitely a film of the post-Tarantino variety, but Tarantino’s pop-culture obsession is what makes movies interesting. Duffy would have us believe he’s asking moral and spiritual questions about vigilante justice, given the idiotic man-on-the-street segment we’re subjected to at the end. These questions, which have been explored with more nuance in much better movies, are drowned in a sea of juvenile posing and violence.
Despite these criticisms, I think it’s fair to say that Boondock Saints is, in fact, a “cult classic,” simply because the public at large has deemed it so. It’s rare a movie gets such a large, fanatical following despite a complete lack of support from the mainstream, and that’s why it deserves not just to be called a “cult movie,” but a bona-fide “cult classic,” regardless of what critics like myself think.
PS: If you’re a fan of this movie and haven’t seen Overnight, do so. The truth is stranger than fiction.
PPS: If you haven’t seen Boondock Saints II: All Saint’s Day, um, don’t. It’s a shit-sandwich the magnitude of which hasn’t been seen since the coming of Highlander II: The Quickening.
Hunter's Movie Man Cave 
What I try to do in analyzing something like this is remove it from it’s context. By that I mean look at it as what it is, not what it has become. What is it? This is a first ATTEMPT at making a film. This isn’t a first feature after student films. This isn’t transitioning from TV into film. This is, “I wrote a screenplay because I was bored and now I am directing it.”
This thing has become some kind of Hot Topic nightmare of mainstreamed hipness. The fan base has become so insufferable with their surface analysis of the film that it is at risk to be nothing more than posing and violence for the mall set.
However, look at it closer. There is a boldness in the filmmaking. The editing choices, the music, the flashbacks. Yeah, it’s a bit hyper stylized and cartoonish at times, but remember you are watching a bartender who wanted to be in a band directing his first film based on his first screenplay.
Look at this again with that as your mindset. This is not a film school guy with a few student films under his belt. This isn’t Tarantino directing his fourth script and second movie (Reservoir Dogs is his fourth writing and second directing if you count “My Best Friends Birthday,” which I do). This isn’t even a film fanatic finally living his dream.
As I see it, this movie is like if I were to go to Hollywood to try and make a film and ended up recording “Appetite for Destruction” instead.
Now, I know that “Citizen Kane” was Wells’s first film, but he had worked in theatre and radio extensively before, so he had a background in drama. Duffy didn’t.
I will say that this is an instance of a sequel hurting the original. After seeing it TWICE for some reason I walked away convinced of two things.
1) The first film was completely rewritten by a professional writer at Miramax after they signed the deal.
and
2) There was either a producer or an editor, most likely an editor, who took the reigns from Duffy.
Both of these things are likely because, for all of his documented asshole behavior from “Overnight,” he was still a first time writer/director, so it would have been easier to take that control.
However the sequel showed how little the emperor Duffy was wearing. I see nothing but his bloated ego in that one. The writing, on all levels, was laughably amateurish and read more like a 9th graders fan fiction, and the direction was lacking any of the nuance of the original. If you disagree with my nuance statement, re watch the beginning and see how skillfully the characters are introduced, how much you learn about them and their world with almost no dialogue.
Yes, there is some ham fisted-ness, but it isn’t incompetence. The talking heads were an interesting choice for an inexperienced writer to use in driving the overall point of the film home. I thought it was quite well done, it wasn’t brilliant or ground breaking by any stretch, but it did leave you with the question, “Why was I cheering when they executed those unarmed men?” Because that is what they did.
I do believe that this deserves “Cult Classic” status because it is an extremely well made first foray into film. Formerly I thought it might be the beginning of a stellar career, but now I realize that it is a massive fluke. However, I refuse to allow the personality of the director, the mainstreaming of the product, or the ridiculously awful sequel ruin a damned good movie. Remember, it’s gotten as popular as it is for a reason.
Excellent thoughts Jim. I think your theories on other chefs spicing up BOONDOCK SAINTS on a script and editing level make sense given what a nightmare BOONDOCK SAINTS II was.
I get the idea behind the talking heads in the end, it just felt poorly acted and clumsily executed. The reason I brought up Tarantino wasn’t because I was comparing Duffy’s career to his, but because in the wake of Tarantino, stylish dialogue-heavy crime movies with cool criminals became all the rage, and Boondock Saints is a result of that. With Welles, it’s simply the amazing deal he got, not their backgrounds.
Context is actually important here when looking at a movie in retrospect, because the question is “Does Boondock Saints deserve to be called a cult classic?” And noting that it’s a first film by a completely untested writer/director is adding context! Context informs this film, some movies beg to be viewed in a vacuum, but I don’t think Boondock Saints does because we can’t help but to put it into context. These are things that must be examined, especially in looking to why it’s a cult movie and not a forgotten action movie in the Wal-Mart bargain bin.
Of course, I must note that Duffy’s personality and the movie’s huge fan base don’t inform my opinion of the film itself.
Excellent thoughts Jim. I think your tireehos on other chefs spicing up BOONDOCK SAINTS on a script and editing level make sense given what a nightmare BOONDOCK SAINTS II was. I get the idea behind the talking heads in the end, it just felt poorly acted and clumsily executed. The reason I brought up Tarantino wasn’t because I was comparing Duffy’s career to his, but because in the wake of Tarantino, stylish dialogue-heavy crime movies with cool criminals became all the rage, and Boondock Saints is a result of that. With Welles, it’s simply the amazing deal he got, not their backgrounds.Context is actually important here when looking at a movie in retrospect, because the question is Does Boondock Saints deserve to be called a cult classic? And noting that it’s a first film by a completely untested writer/director is adding context! Context informs this film, some movies beg to be viewed in a vacuum, but I don’t think Boondock Saints does because we can’t help but to put it into context. These are things that must be examined, especially in looking to why it’s a cult movie and not a forgotten action movie in the Wal-Mart bargain bin. Of course, I must note that Duffy’s personality and the movie’s huge fan base don’t inform my opinion of the film itself.
I think what I meant by out of context is removing all the stuff that is not part of the film itself. The marketing, the personality of Duffy, the sequel. More look at it for what it is not what is around it.
I haven’t seen the original. Have no interest in “part II” but can clearly say from all the buzz and fans it is unquestionably a “Cult Classic” (or perhaps, as at http://www.rickross.com/ , the world’s most sought after cult expert; it is best refered to as a “Cult Movie”). Calling it only a “Cult Movie” would let Toto breathe a sign of relief and justify in his mind, that it is clearly NOT a “classic”.
I agree, but my criticism of it still stands. Don’t get me wrong, I dig BOONDOCK SAINTS, it’ll always be a nostalgia movie for me.