The Boondock Saints just shows us two guys. Were not sure what they are until 20 minutes into the film. And even at 20 minutes were still not exactly sure. Are they angels? May be. If they are then that implies that the credit documentary sequence was more or less unnecessary. Regardless, we come to understand that somehow these guys are really good at shooting and they take it upon themselves to clean up the streets by killing people.
I think that Enlightenment philosophers would have a problem with this.
In the end of the film during the documentary sequence a man says "yes, I support capital punishment."
The problem with this film is that it is worse than capital punishment because at least executed prisoners had a "fair" trial and was considered innocent until proven guilty. While the film tries to present a 50-50 mentality about morality, it is clear what side the filmmakers support via the glorification of the "heroes".
(Side Note: does anyone else think Il Duce was hyper-random?)
The film is in essence style with no substance. And its bad style at that. The cinematography was really bad. When it comes to this type of film, generally the only redeeming quality is the really cool lighting and badass action sequences. This was just weird.
The flaws with this film really fall under basic filmmaking 101.
If The Boondock Saints don't want to give their victims a fair trial, then the filmmakers need to. We as the viewer must be convinced that these are the scum of the Earth and deserve to have their head blown off. We are just told they are bad. The film was 1hr and 50min, they definitely could have had more in there.
I hate to say it, but for this film to work. We would have needed to see some rape. Some torture. Some abusive and sadistic mutilation. We have to think to ourselves "yeah! go saints!" But when we are just told of these "bad guys" and watch them die... As far as characters go they are not "bad" to the viewer, only the filmmaker.
I am reminded of the film A Clockwork Orange. The first third of the film is constant and brutal violence to emphasize the themes of individual liberties over safety.
This film needed to start off showing the first third of A Clockwork Orange, and then the remainder of the film is The Saints seeking revenge on the Droogs. That's how this film works. We can't just be dropped into something, be told who is good, who is bad, and just accept the violence in front of us.
At a minimum we needed to see corruption in the police or government.
We need to see two guys who have known a (preferably small) town their whole life. That town has to become overrun by gangsters, killers, rapists, pedophiles. They have to seek the government and police help. There has to be corruption so that we, as the viewer, understand that the system of democracy and order has failed. Then after a lot of self-reflection, these two guys take it upon themselves to take back their hometown. They kill. The police come after them because they are being paid off by the mob. They in essence become Batman in the film Batman Begins... except with guns. Then after some highly stylized action they die in a blaze of bullets. Except there were reporters or something and the cops and politicians go to jail for corruption, better police come in, and the social ills are alleviated. The end. That is The Boondock Saints (the better version). And I wrote that story in under 3 minutes.
