Pacific Rim

 Finally!  A Summer movie that motivated me to get on my butt and blog!  In a Summer when the apocalypse is commonplace (off the top of my head, we're talking about Oblivion, After Earth, World War Z, and This is the End, although I am sure there are others) I have to admit that I was still unnaturally excited for Pacific Rim, which promised little aside from destruction --- destruction provided by giant robots fighting giant monsters, which brings with it awesomeness at almost a cellular level.  That was not the only reason I was excited, though.  This was another chance for director Guillermo del Toro to show once again why he is one of the greatest visual directors making movies today.  And then I saw the trailer and started asking questions.

Did Idris Elba just give Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day?  Do we have to watch two people in spacesuits perform a synchronized dance instead of watching robots punching monsters in the junk?  Is Charlie Hunnam going to be a muscular version of Sam Witwicky from the Transformers trilogy?  If you need to know, basically, not really, and blessedly no, respectively.

Also, I can't be the only one who recognizes the old Fox Sunday football robots, right?

Pacific Rim opens with a voice-over from Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam) bringing the audience up to speed.  In the near future, a dimensional rift opens in the Pacific Ocean and huge alien monsters come through.  These monsters are reminiscent of Japanese monsters movies, like Godzilla and Gamera, so they are called Kaiju, after that film subclass.

As you might expect, the Kaiju did some major damage, so the World Governments decided to team up and create the Jaeger program.  Jaegers are gigantic fighting robots that are piloted by two humans, who share some sort of Vulcan mind meld in order to pilot their metal beast.  For a while, the Jaegers worked.  Category 1 and 2 Kaiju --- that's a rating system based on their size --- were easy pickings for these awesome anime mechs/rock 'em sock 'em robots.

If a punch to the face is badass, how much more amazing is a ROBOT punch to a MONSTER face?

In fact, our narrator, Raleigh was a Jaeger pilot with his brother.  Unfortunately, they happened to be the first Jaeger to meet with a Category 3 Kaiju, and the brother was killed in action.  Years have passed and the Jaeger program is on hard times.  Their funding has been cut in favor of building large walls around major cities.

...which works out well

It is at this point that the Jaeger commander (Idris Elba) re-recruits Raleigh to join up with the much-depleted Jaeger corps.  Thanks to his crack science team (composed of Charlie Day and Burn Gorman), he thinks there is a slim chance of being able to close the dimensional portal in a crazy, suicidal offensive maneuver.  He needs Raleigh because he only has four Jaegers left, and Raleigh is the only living person who has ever piloted one of the models.  But who will be his soul-mate co-pilot?

To find out, they endure several Dance Dance Revolution trials --- in spaaaace!

I always take the time to discuss the acting in the movies I review, but is that really necessary with Pacific Rim?  It's really not, but I found the acting to be a pleasant surprise in a film that could have gotten away with a lot less in that area.  Admittedly, Charlie Hunnam didn't "wow" in this role, thanks to a combination of dull dialogue and serving as a plot device.  He wasn't bad, but he sure was bland.  Idris Elba, on the other hand, did some of his best movie work to date (his television work is still far better, though); his character was kind of a mish-mash of other end-of-the-world authority figures, but Elba was still able to make the part a little interesting.  Rinko Kikuchi was okay as Raleigh's partner; it can be tough making an introvert interesting in an action flick, but she was all right.  I was pleasantly surprised by Charlie Day, if only because this is the furthest he has gone from his role on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

SCIENCE!

He was charming and fun, and I would love to see him stretch his acting chops more in the future.  Burn Gorman wasn't as big of a surprise, but his portrayal of a scientist brought to mind Peter Lorre for reasons I cannot articulate, and that's probably not a bad thing.  Ron Perlman, unsurprisingly, had a small part in Pacific Rim, since he and del Toro are such good buddies.  Perlman's work here reminds us that he's not that good of an actor, just a good sport, willing to put on any makeup necessary to look cool.

Above: Perlman and two other actors.  Get it?  He's ugly.

Rounding out the cast, Clifton Collins Jr. and Max Martini were perfectly acceptable in small, decently likable parts.  Robert Kazinsky was obnoxious as the Jaeger equivalent of Iceman from Top Gun.  That may be the point of his character, but Val Kilmer sure was cooler.

How do they expect to play beach volleyball and high-five wearing that?

Most of the time, when I discuss movie direction, I focus on the camera work and the actor performances.  For Pacific Rim, though, so much of the movie was CGI that I am taking a different approach.  I really enjoy the work of director/co- writer Guillermo del Toro, if only from a visual standpoint, but I like what he did with the humans in this film. 

He scared them.

They could have easily been an afterthought, or worse --- an irritant, like those awful Witwickys.  Instead, del Toro introduced a reasonable amount of drama and character beats to a story that is essentially "punch monster in the face" for 85 pages.

Don't forget the four pages of "science-y doodads"

I was actually impressed that the story wasn't as predictable as I had assumed it would be; there was no unnecessary love story and the obvious choice for a sacrificial character was ignored.  Visually, this film was stunning.  The amount of detail that went into the set, robot, and monster designs was astounding.

Del Toro clearly put a lot of his efforts into the look and feel of this film, and it showed.  This felt like a plausible world, where giant robots had been fighting and breaking and being repaired for over a decade.  The script isn't very clever and del Toro still has not managed to really nail interpersonal scenes, but his work with broad visual concepts is impressive and exciting.

"Robots and monsters fighting in space" exciting?  Yes.  A thousand times, yes.

What is it about Pacific Rim that excited me, where others failed?  There have been so many movies lately that have shown vast urban environments being absolutely wrecked --- what makes this any different than, say, Man of Steel?  I think the biggest difference is in scale.  Because the robots and monsters are so gigantic, the camera is pulled far enough away for audiences to really notice and appreciate everything being smashed to bits.  That scale also seems to imply and accept large numbers of civilian casualties in a way that is expected and not ignored.  It isn't just that, though; several battles take place in the ocean and are still a blast to watch. 

I didn't get "action fatigue" watching Pacific Rim because it was fun and each battle did something else spectacular and over-the-top.  There was also enough wanton destruction to spread it fairly evenly over the entire film.  This isn't a back-loaded action movie where the cool stuff is all at the end --- some of the coolest scenes come during the opening voice-over.  If I am going to be perfectly honest, Pacific Rim scratches an itch I have had since childhood.  I played with Transformers and Voltron and build huge Lego things for them to smash.  While I have seen a lot (almost too much) CGI destruction of late, this is a film that captures the fun of playing with toys that are clearly scaled differently than everything else in your toy box.  Is Pacific Rim derivative?  Well, yes.  At its core, this is a classic kaiju movie done right, combined with combat mechs that animes seem to love so much and a large enough budget to make everything look good.  This movie owes a lot to many sources, but this is clearly a movie that loves what it is imitating, and even improves on its influences.  In a Summer of sequels, reboots, and outright flops, Pacific Rim stands out for being something I will be able to watch over and over, regardless of sobriety.

Sunshine Cleaning

Dark humor is a tricky muse.  While there is always something to be done at exactly the wrong time and place, very few movies are willing to entertain such sociopathic delights for long.  One reason is because it's hard to root for characters that are complete bastards; the other is that too much inappropriate behavior dulls the senses.  Personally, I like the change of pace that dark/black comedies provide, so I watched Sunshine Cleaning with a sense of optimism that usually doesn't accompany films that center around death and/or cleaning.

Rose (Amy Adams) is tired of her life.  It's not a bad life, but it kind of sucks.  She's a single mom, and her son, Oscar (Jason Spevack), just got expelled from school for licking too many people and things.  She has a close relationship with her little sister, Norah (Emily Blunt), who is a career (bad) waitress.  Her father, Joe (Alan Arkin), is an eccentric businessman that specializes in novelties.  Rose works as a maid, does a good job, but she doesn't get much money or self-respect from the gig; when she accidentally runs into a high school friend (whose house she just cleaned), Rose lies and tells her that she is a maid only until she gets her real estate license.  Rose's only outlet seems to be her motel trysts with Mac (Steve Zahn), her high school boyfriend that is married with children.  Life could be worse, but it could easily suck less for Rose.

One night, Mac recounts his day at work to Rose; he is a police officer, and he noticed just how much money can be made by cleaning companies that specialize in crime scene cleaning.  Obviously, that would involve cleaning up a lot of blood and other fluids, but how hard could it possibly be?  Rose enlists Norah as her employee, and the two begin Sunshine Cleaning.  Of course, there's more to cleaning biological material than just throwing it in the trash, so Rose befriends Winston (Clifton Collins, Jr.), the owner of a cleaning supplies shop.  Let the hijinks begin!

Blood + Weekend Chore = Comedy Gold?

Well...not so fast.  While the movie trailers and most online retailers qualify this film as a comedy (or a comedy-drama, at the very least), it's not really a funny movie.  Sure, there are some funny moments as the girls dip their toes in the morbid business of cleaning up after the dead, but this is definitely more of a lighthearted drama than anything else.  If "lighthearted" seems like an unusual description for a movie so steeped in death, then you're in the same boat as me.

The acting in the film is all high quality.  Amy Adams doesn't act in a lot of movies that I actually want to watch, but when I see her on the screen, I find her generally likable.  She doesn't disappoint here; she is able to balance the funny and the tragic in the script, and she doesn't overact in a movie that is fairly melodramatic at times.  Emily Blunt was also good, although her character didn't have the range of Adams'.  The trouble I had with her performance was that her character has difficulty articulating what she is feeling, and Blunt's performance doesn't provide an answer, it just mirrors that confusion.  Alan Arkin was plays a very good weird grandpa character, although the similarities between this performance and his work in Little Miss Sunshine are pretty noticeable.  He just has a smaller role in this film.  I was surprised to see Steve Zahn in such an unlikable supporting role, but he played it straight and did a respectable job.  Mary Lynn Rjskub had a small role as a woman that Norah stalks and befriends for unknown reasons; she was generally okay, but her awkwardness on screen is overwhelming at times.  If she ever makes a movie with Phillip Seymour Hoffman, it will be positively unwatchable.  Clifton Collins, Jr. had the unenviable task of playing a one-armed man in a post-The Fugitive society, but I was impressed with the nuance he brought to his character.  His character clearly has a crush on Rose, but it's all nonverbal; he also handled Oscar's comments about his missing arm with delicacy and dramatic restraint.

Harrison's looking for you, Clifton Collins!

I thought Christine Jeffs did a fine job directing this movie, although her strength clearly lies with her handling of the actors.  I liked all the performances in the movie, and I think Jeffs did a good job keeping the acting pretty realistic.  If you consider how all over the place Clifton Collins' performances can be, I think Jeffs' talents become more apparent.  I was disappointed that there were not more visually arresting moment in this film.  In a story where characters have to clean up after death, I would think that there would be a lot of striking visuals.  Aside from the scene where the sisters take toothbrushes to clean up a bloody shower, Sunshine Cleaning is definitely lacking in that department.

The biggest problem I have with Sunshine Cleaning is that is half-asses everything.  It's a comedy, but it doesn't take the time to be very funny.  It's a drama, but it's too quirky to be taken seriously.  The characters all seem like they are at crossroads in their lives, but none come to a satisfactory conclusion; you can argue that perhaps this wasn't a film that aimed for a tidy ending, but it the final scene had unmistakably happy music playing.  A lot of the drama in the film comes from a revelation (SPOILER ALERT: their job makes them clean up after a lot of suicides, and that's how their mother died.  Shock.  Awe.  Sympathy.) that was too coincidental to feel anything but manipulative, and I resented that.  There was also a ridiculous recurring theme of using a CB radio to talk to the dead that was too melodramatic for this movie.

Like Rose's life, Sunshine Cleaning could be a lot worse.  It has solid directing, a good premise and some impressive acting, but that can't save the movie from a story that cannot decide on a tone and some regretfully sappy moments.

Star Trek (2009)

As the eleventh Star Trek movie, the plainly titled Star Trek (2009) had a lot to live up to.  The Star Trek universe is a rich tapestry of science fiction, with more races, worlds and continuity from the television shows and previous films than any other major Hollywood franchise.  Even the James Bond series, which has many more movies, is not even close to the depth of Star Trek.  It's too bad so many Star Trek movies suck.  To reboot the franchise, television producer/creator J.J. Abrams was recruited to direct.  Abrams isn't a trekkie, so he was up for anything, as long as it looked cool and had Kirk and Spock in it.  If I was a trekkie, I would have gotten a little nervous after hearing that.

If you're not familiar with the Star Trek series, don't worry.  There's plenty to learn, but very few important people actually care if you know it.  So, here are the basics.  In the future, humans have gone into space and met other intelligent species.  These friendly planets have formed a union, called the Federation.  The Federation's version of the Army is the Starfleet Academy; Starfleet protects Federation planets and explores the universe peacefully, seeking knowledge.  Aside from Humans, the most important Federation species are the Vulcans, a race of pointy-eared (but otherwise human-looking), emotionless, logical killjoys.  The opposite of the Vulcans are the Romulans (not part of the Federation), who look pretty much like Vulcans, but are mean, devious, and emotional.  Technically, you don't even need to know that much, but it helps a little when some good guys and bad guys both have pointy ears.

Fans in Romulan costumes: Can you smell the sex in the air?

The movie begins not with a familiar cast of characters, but a blast from the past.  While investigating some sort of electrical space storm, a Federation ship, the Kelvin (what, was Celcius taken?), is attacked by a Romulan ship, the Narada.  After his first mate (Clifton Collins Jr.) convinces the Starfleet commander (Faran Tahir) to visit the Romulan ship, the Romulan captain, Nero (Eric Bana) kills the Starfleet man.  Or, in other words, mean alien kills gullible human.  Back on the Kelvin, George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) realizes how serious the situation is, and orders an evacuation of the ship, which includes his pregnant wife (Jennifer Morrison).  George knows that the Narada will pick off the evacuation shuttles without something to distract it, so he opts for a suicide mission and steers his ship into the Narada.  The rest of the crew survives, including little James Tiberius Kirk, who was born amidst all the trouble.  The Narada was never seen again.

Fast forward a couple decades, and James Kirk (Chris Pine) is now a headstrong cadet of the Starfleet Academy.  When he's not busy getting it on with green-skinned women, Kirk seems to fill his time by flirting/frustrating language specialist Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and doing his absolute best to royally irritate Starfleet's resident Vulcan, Spock (Zachary Quinto).  When a mysterious electrical space storm appears nearby the planet Vulcan, several Starfleet ships investigate; recognizing the electrical storm as being eerily similar to the one from his birthday, cadet Kirk convinces his ship's captain, Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), to hold back a bit.  Smart boy.  The Narada appears and destroys all the ships it encounters, and appears intent on turning the planet Vulcan into a black hole.  What is the deal with the mysterious Narada?  Why is it attacking the Federation in such a strange manner?  How long until it changes its focus to a planet that actually matters, like Earth?  Did I say "turn the planet...into a black hole?"  How do you do that?  The answer to all those questions is "You'll see."

I wasn't sure how much I would enjoy Star Trek.  I've seen a couple of movies, mostly when I was younger, but the series has never captured my attention for long, aside from the excellent Wrath of Khan.  I'm not a big fan of J.J. Abrams' previous film work and was never a Lost fan, so the idea of rebooting the series with young, sexy actors seemed kind of like a creative last gasp to me.  In my defense, I'm not wrong.  The path the filmmakers took to do this, though, was interesting, entertaining, and surprisingly fun.

This Star Trek, unlike its predecessors, assumes you know only the basics about Star Trek, like the fact that it takes place in space.  Actually, this is a science fiction movie that assumes that you hate science fiction, and goes around that problem.  Gone are any highbrow parallels to modern society's excesses, or commentary on political ideas (for better or worse).  This isn't a movie where the plot is all that important; this is an action movie set in space, with all the explosions and punching that implies.  There's a few things for the core sci-fi fanatics out there, but this movie was made to entertain, pure and simple.

The key to this was the cast.  Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were awesome as Kirk and Spock, respectively.  Since this movie is more or less centered around the two of them learning to work together, that is very important.  Pine comes across as brash, headstrong, and intelligent, someone just as likely to beat you in school as he is to get in a fight with you at a bar.  Quinto was surprisingly effective as the typically emotionless Spock, and his performance stands up against that of the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy (who has a small part in the film).  It's hard to play what is, essentially, a straight man to the rollicking man slut that is James Kirk and make it seem cool, but Quinto did it.  The rest of the supporting cast, while noteworthy, were basically bit parts.  Zoe Saldana probably had the meatiest supporting role, but her performance seemed a little forced; I just felt like her character wanted to end each line with "Man, I am a cool lady!" in an attempt to draw in more female viewers.  I have nothing against changing up the sausage fest that is your typical Star Trek movie, but I don't know if I Saldana has the acting chops to back that up.  Karl Urban assumed the mantle of Leonard "Bones" McCoy, doctor and second-guesser of Kirk and Spock; he was fine, but I thought he was imitating his predecessor too much.  Other recognizable actors filling established Star Trek roles include Simon Pegg (as Scottie), John Cho (Sulu), and Anton Yelchin (Chekov).  Pegg and Yelchin were kind of funny and cute, and Cho was inexplicably in a fight sequence where he didn't really do anything cool.  As for the bad guys, I can honestly say that I didn't recognize either Eric Bana or Clifton Collins Jr. in their makeup.  They weren't particularly stunning, but they were suitably evil.  There are more bit parts with name actors, like Chris Hemsworth, Jennifer Morrison, Winona Ryder, Rachel Nichols, Deep Roy, Victor Garber, and Tyler Perry, but the important thing amidst all these famous faces is that Kirk and Spock, played by two relatively unknown actors, were pretty great.

"If they're so awesome, how come they didn't inspire this fan art?" - William Shatner

That was the top-ranked Google image for the search terms "kirk and spock."  Fact.

J.J. Abrams direction was decent with the actors, but I was really impressed with how involved I was in the movie; when I saw Mission: Impossible III (also directed by Abrams), I was impressed with how frequently Tom Cruise has to sprint in his movies.  That's a nice step up for Abrams.  He's not a great storyteller, but he's smart enough to know that, if you speed by them, it is easy to ignore plot flaws.

When I was first watching this movie, a little question kept popping up in the back of my head: "How is this going to tie in with the rest of the movies?"  Yes, this movie is supposed to be a reboot, but it has all the same characters as the original series and they all act basically the same.  By making this into a "Star Trek: Year One," wasn't this movie effectively rebooting itself as the beginning of a prequel franchise?  As it turns out, none of that really mattered.  When it became apparent that time travel and alternate realities played a part in this movie, all my questions were answered with Leonard Nimoy smiling and saying, "Don't think about it.  You'll just end up with a nosebleed."  I usually don't have a problem with pseudo-science in sci-fi movies, but when it is actually the crux of the entire plot, I want it to make a little more sense.

That said, I still enjoyed this movie.  It was fun.  It broke the rule of every odd-numbered Star Trek being terrible.  And, most importantly, it brought back big-budget bombast to science fiction movies.  I think the last truly great sci-fi-action hybrid was the original Matrix, and this was a refreshing change from all the high-profile sci-fi flops in recent years.  And you know what?  I think the sequel to this movie should be pretty awesome, too.  I give this Star Trek reboot high praise, or as trekkies might say: to infinity and beyond!

The Boondock Saints II: All Saint's Day

It's been over ten years since the original The Boondock Saints was released; it was a bad time for ultra-violent films, since it came out right after the Columbine shootings.  For those who haven't seen the movie, it's about two brothers who decide to become vigilantes and, more or less, start killing all the criminals they can find.  Despite never getting wide release, the film became a cult classic and a huge hit on DVD.  Personally, I love The Boondock Saints, for what it does right and wrong.  It's even become something of a tradition to watch it on St. Patrick's Day.  Now, the long awaited sequel is on DVD.  Does this mean that next year, I'll start watching two movies every March 17?  The short answer is "no."

This movie has every reason to succeed.  The writer/director of the first film (Troy Duffy) returns, along with the three stars, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, and Billy Connolly.  The three Boston policemen from the first movie return.  Heck, the bad guys even get upgraded in this movie; in the first flick, Ron Jeremy was the most famous villain, but here we have Peter Fonda and Judd Nelson.  There are two notable absences, though.  While the lovely and talented Willem Dafoe is relegated to a cameo, he is replaced by television actress Julie Benz (of Dexter and Angel fame); that is not an improvement, but more on her later.  Also, the funny, but not much of an actor, David Della Rocco is more or less replaced (he still cameos, but he died in the last film) by the less funny,  but arguably a better actor, Clifton Collins, Jr.

More or less, the team that made the first movie so much fun was back in business.  So, how's the script?  Well, when I was watching it, I commented that it felt like the script was written in two days, but Troy Duffy spent the next ten years making sure to turn everything up to eleven; in other words, every line in every scene feels like it was tweaked so that it would be ultra-memorable.  Duffy probably re-watched The Boondock Saints critically and concluded that he wasted too much time having dialogue that built character and advanced plot; this time around, every line would be a "zinger."  Seriously, this movie is very tiring.  You know when you have a friend that's funny, but feels that he's being ignored?  He overreacts by trying to make every single thing he says funny, and in the process just becomes annoying.  Well, your friend's name is The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day.

The plot isn't much better.  After the events of the last movie, the MacManus brothers (Flanery and Reedus) are living in seclusion with their father (Connelly) as sheep herders in Ireland.  Somebody kills a priest in Boston and leaves their trademark after the crime, so the brothers return to Boston with the plan to kill everyone involved with the crime.  Okay, so far, so good.  Revenge and honor are as good a reason as any for vigilantes to start killing criminals, right?  And that's basically what happens.  Sure, they are lacking David Della Rocco, so they pick up an equally bumbling sidekick in Clifton Collins, Jr.  Yes, they're being chased by the FBI again, but instead of their accomplice, Dafoe, they get his apprentice, Benz.  Billy Connolly is not in much of the movie (just like last time), but when he is, the plot focuses on him (much like last time).  Ugh.  It's the same movie, but not nearly as good, despite all its efforts.

So, if the movie is basically the first movie, but with a lot more insults and supposedly memorable lines, where does it fall short?  Let's start with the MacManus family.  When the movie begins, the brothers are going incognito; their hair and beards are shoulder length.  While this actually looks natural on Reedus, Flanery looks like he Velcro-ed woolen socks to his face for his beard.  Okay, that's a small complaint.  But, when they decide to return to Boston, where the FBI will undoubtedly be looking for them, they cut their hair and beards to look exactly the same as they did when the last movie ended.  Very incognito.  The brothers are sharing the same tattoo this time around; they both have Christ on the cross in the middle of their backs, but Flanery has Christ from the head down to the waist, while Reedus has the legs and feet.  Really?  What were they thinking?  What position do they have to be in for that to look cool?  Even if Flanery was getting a piggy back ride from Reedus, there would still be a gap in their flesh portrait!  You know what would have been better?  If they shared the same tattoo, but it was split down the center; when they are back-to-back, preparing to execute a criminal, only then does it come together as one portrait.  The brothers are still amateurs, too.  They get in the same fights that they did in the last movie over the same things.  They still play jokes with unloaded guns.  They still plot their attacks like they are in a bad action movie (well, they are, but you know what I mean).  In short, over ten years, the only noticeable change in these characters is that Flanery looks older.  Oh, any Billy Connolly (who is the best part of the MacManus family) is barely in the movie; instead, we are treated to a Godfather II-esque origin story for him.  In a word: LAME.

The supporting cast isn't better, either.  Benz has the strongest (and worst) southern accent I have heard this side of sketch comedy.  I don't like her motivation and I think the way it was introduced to the Boston cops would have been much more effective if the MacManus brothers were not in on the secret.  Her part was too similar to Dafoe's, to the point of mockery.  Peter Fonda sports an Italian accent that made me yearn for his surfer turn in Escape From L.A.  Clifton Collins, Jr. was both a cartoon and, in some ways, extremely charming.  I wavered between hating him and laughing at him, so his performance canceled itself out for me.  Judd Nelson (and I can't believe I'm typing this) was underused in this movie, and I wish he had more screen time.  Willem Dafoe's cameo was welcome, although it opened the movie up for an obvious sequel (that might actually happen, since the film was profitable in the US alone).  David Della Rocco's cameo acted as a mission statement for the movie; while it was not at all subtle, Rocco is fun to see on the screen.

Overall, this is a movie that is living in the shadow of its predecessor.  Boondock Saints II wants to be the Terminator 2 for its franchise, the sequel that takes all the great things from the first movie and makes them James-Cameron-HUGE.  It certainly succeeds in making things louder and dumber, but that doesn't make it better.  Is it violent?  Yes.  Does it have a lot of creative dialogue?  Too much.  Does it make sense?  Kind of.  The main problem with Boondock Saints II is that it loves the original so much, the characters can't escape its formula.