Actually Dafoe chose to be in it without recommedation by his agent. Its pretty interesting really, this is pretty much how this became a movie:
The guy who wrote it was sitting in a bar with the screenplay and William Dafoe sat right next to him. Dafoe asked what he had and he said it was a screenplay so Dafoe asked to read it. He loved it and couldn't believe that they weren't making a movie about it. Billy Connelly came in because he was meeting Dafoe at the bar. Dafoe had him read it and he couldn't believe it wasn't going to be a movie either. They then started joking about how it would be fun if they did make it a movie and Dafoe was the good guy (usually bad) and Connelly was the bad guy (usually good). Connelly right then and there called his agent and told him to get a hold of whoever necessary to make the screenplay into a movie.
__________________
Greg Oden: The future of the Blazers. The future of the NBA.
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
theres no release date set, but it is in the works.
__________________
All the ways you wish you could be, that's me. I look like you wanna look, I **** like you wanna ****, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways that you are not.
yeah for the record, boondock saints is a really good movie. It was a breath of fresh air to me The vigilante intentions of the two characters comes out of no where with no forshadowing, just a desicion they made as we watched there story. It was an original twist in a redundant genre.
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
how do you seriously figure that it is overated? I know alot of people are just now discovering the film which makes it seem like it has been re-released in theaters. Now that is annoying to me, but just because thesepeople think they found a diamond in the rough when they were probably forced to wathcit by friends. but it had horrid reviews and died out into back shelf rentals that spawned a small cult following.
There is no reason for a sequal, it should just stay as one of those anti-hollywood flicks that have a flare of humorous violence
__________________ "If you tell the truth, you never have to remember anything" -Twain
(sig by Scythe)
All of its success has come from word of mouth and spread by fans unlike most "hits" which had huge marketing behind them. This is the way movies should become known, by fans.
Btw: Wasn't it not released in theaters because of the whole 9/11 thing?
__________________
Greg Oden: The future of the Blazers. The future of the NBA.
Isn't flaming supposed to be sort of "curbed" in this forum ("ass-muncher" and so forth)?
Anyway, those who hate "Boondock Saints" have a right to, just as we enjoy that film, "Taxi Driver", "Death Wish (1 and 2)", "Walking Tall" (1973) and half a dozen other decent vigilante movies. Granted, there have been a few others that have been opiates for the masses, like "Walking Tall" (2004) and "Death Wish 3, 4 and 5", and some that were at least marginally entertaining, if dated; "Fighting Back" (1982), "Joe" (1970) and "Vigilante" (1983) are examples. There are even those that put vigilantism into superhero movies, i.e. "Robocop", "Batman", "Spider-man" and "The Punisher", just to name a few.
Suffice it to say, this type of movie, just like any other, can have its faults, its chestnuts, its lack of a second act. I would just rather its detractors go into some reasonably well-thought-out detail about WHY it's a bad film, not just letting the board know how stuck for adjectives they are by blurting out "It sux for real" or some such sentiment.
__________________ Evelle: "Balloons! Hey, these blow up into funny shapes 'n' all?"
Grocer: "Well, no...unless round is funny."
KMC Community Forums
Apr 9th, 2004 02:35 AM
