Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1300851/

For some reason I'm a little conserned about this movie. I loved the first one...and to me, they ended it on a high note.

Do you think my fears are unfounded?

No. Your fears are not unfounded. I too thought the first movie ended on a high note, and like many other movies before it, should have stayed standalone.

That it's still the same director gives it a glimmer of hope, though?

And they got the same guys who played the brothers as well...

I'll see it when it comes out, but I wish Willem Dafoe was returning.

Apparently a trailer was shown at Comic-Con but it hasn't yet made it onto the internet.

I can certainly understand people's apprehensions about this film. I'm going to wait until I see the trailer before deciding.

The Wandering God

I hated the first one, and will avoid this one like the plague. Barring a change in director/writer, that is.

Come on, they dropped a toilet on a russian mafia guy, whats not to like?

And just because you're gay, doesn't mean you act like a woman.

Man your fears are in no way unfounded. It's a number-in-the-title sequel with an incredibly lame pun as the sub-title. Name ONE good movie that had those elements.

The second Ninja Turtles movie.

"The Secret of the Ooze" is a pun?

I'd say it's a cheesy enough sounding title that it counts. It's like a second cousin to a pun.

Yeah but you can't just go with exceptions. We have to look at all the ones that support the rule, like Attack of the Clones (cheesy), Matrix Reloaded (pun on computer program being reloaded), etc.

By the way the original title was going to be "Boondock Saints II: The Second Coming"

So they took one pun that referenced it as a sequel and then replaced it with a pun that references the "Saints" part of the title. Whether that is an improvement I'm not sure.

By the way, the first movie is alright and I'm not sure why there are long essays against it, though I think it has something to do with the insane love expressed for the movie beyond any real reason (it IS a somewhat sophomoric attempt to copycat Pulp Fiction's style something like three years too late) as well as the director Troy Duffy, who is at best described as "an asshole" or something along those lines. But yeah I never watched the "Making of" featurette or anything so I only have the movie to go by, and hey. It was okay.

It's a cult movie. you can never make a sequel for a cult movie.

They made a sequel to Rocky Horror...

They did?

They also made a sequel to Troll and then again another sequel to that one. Which incidentally the second one had nothing to do with the first and the third had nothing to do with the first two. Not even the monsters were related in any way.

Also the Evil Dead sequels were way better than the schlocky original, if you ask me.

And a sequel to Heavy Metal.

They also made a Video Game based on The Warriors

They'll do crap with cult classics if it'll = more money

To be fair, calling the original a "cult classic" when it's just a little over a decade old is kind of pushing it, I think.

I mean, if they made a sequel to The Toxic Avenger, I'd say they were making a sequel to a cult classic, but this is merely a sequel to a "cult" film (even though I think everyone my age that I know has seen it, in high school and such).

Sorry, the 2 I mentioned are considered Cult Classics and forgot to added the classic part at the last part due to habbit. But my point is if they would do that with cult classic films then they would do it with any old cult film if it would make money.

Okay, first, Magus, Evil Dead 1 is easily the best. I love the other two, but Sam Raimi remains the greatest horror director ever. Second, b_real, Troll isn't a cult film. Troll 2 is. And third, Magus, cult classics need to be old? Donnie Darko's not even seven years old!

/rant

Chainsaw arm + Groovy >>>>>>> Any scary thing ever
 

Sam Raimi directed all three. Unless you're saying that the first is just better because it's scarier or something.

Well, someone was telling me a book had to be 100 years old and still relevant to officially count as a classic. Movies have it easy.

I am exactly saying that it's better cause it's scarier.

And I don't buy the whole "it has to be old to be a classic" thing. It's critical elitism.

Something is a classic by standing the test of time, and still being able to be considered relevant/good. It's not critical elitism so much as you can only know that something will still be considered great/amazing/whatever in so much time after it has done just that.

Really to be a classic you have to transcend tastes across a whole variety of periods. So you really can't judge soemthing classic when it's just come out because you and it are produced in the same time frame and the same style of ideas. A classic needs to be timeless and you can't judge that when it is new.

my bad, forgot to add a part to this.

Yeah I hate snobby elitist hate-everything culture critics as much as the next guy but if classic doesn't mean old then it's pretty pointless as a word. It's not like we need another synonym for "this movie is super-good".

Again I can't be down with any premise that requires me to call Army of Darkness anything less than totally fantastic.

If you're coming up with a single definition of what classic means, something is wrong!

A Cult Classic isn't a classic that uses cults as its subject matter!

Augh!



And that's a terrible title.

Wasn't the whole evil dead trilogy supposed to be watched as one long movie?

Damned if I know. I only watched 2 & 3 on account of the first one not having Bruce Campbell's enormous chin.

But Bruce Campbell was in the first one.

The Wandering God

Really? Damn. I guess I better check it out. Somebody told me Ash wasn't in the first movie. :/ Shows what they know.

The Ash Williams that we know wasn't in Evil Dead.

The first Evil Dead wasn't trying to be funny, it was just trying to be scary (I think), and failed due to a low budget. The second movie squeezes the entirety of the first one into five minutes at the beginning which was sort of funny in and of itself, and the rest of the movie was just hysterical, so the budget didn't really matter (though I think it had a larger budget.)

Like, y'know, El Mariachi was trying to be a movie with big action scenes but its lack of budget made it fail, but luckily Rodriguez threw some humor in there and so the final thing wasn't too bad, and then he retained the humor for the sequel Desperado and with a much larger budget made like the "best action movie ever made" (as will be applied to a bunch of other movies). But I wouldn't say that Desperado was a worse movie just because the action scenes overrode the humor (well, that is debatable of course, it's so over-the-top its funny in a lot of places, but anyway).

I mean, I think of it like that. Evil Dead probably would've been made funny if Raimi had realized that would go over big and the final product wasn't going to be very scary, and I don't think that Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness being really utterly hilarious was a mistake just because he started out with something he was attempting to make "scary". Luckily with Drag Me Down To Hell I think he hits both nails on the head at the same time (with dual hammers, I guess?)

Also, I don't really care if you call Boondock Saints a cult "classic" or whatever, I wasn't really attacking the film's quality (it's okay) or whether it will stand the test of time (here, there might be a problem, because six million movies have copied the Tarantino method so much that even Tarantino himself can't come out with a movie without people comparing it to Pulp Fiction, and I'm under the impression the number of movies similar to The Boondock Saints will only keep increasing), just the fact that it's only a decade or so old. At least use some oxymoron like "modern classic" to differentiate a movie made recently from a real cult classic classic like The Toxic Avenger or The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which are a lot older.

I mean, I don't even think the movie is a cult film, since everyone I know (well, male friends) has seen it and I'm guessing that a LOT of other people have seen it. And if they happened to be a male aged 15-28 probably liked it, unless they hated it.