Overnight (2003)

Surprisingly, the behind-the-scenes documentary based on 'The Boondock Saints' was thoroughly more interesting and incredibly better made. Somewhat like what 'Full Tilt Boogie' did for 'From Dusk Till Dawn.' The biggest difference is: 'Boogie' was a direct documentary on the making of 'Dawn,' 'Overnight' is more of the slight rise and hardest fall of director/writer/musician Troy Duffy, creator of 'Saints.' I've seen 'Overnight' several times, and 'Saints' only once – I could only stomach one viewing. I'd have to say I enjoyed 'Overnight,' despite its flaws. Such as, the documentary states he's pursued by Harvey Weinstein, but doesn't show it. It states Duffy's in a band, but no real background is shown. Documentaries should be "show, don't tell." Despite those, and others I'm sure I've missed, I also thought: this has to be fake. Can one person be this arrogant, insulting, brainless and bloody stupid? Can his family and peers be so incredibly naïve to follow him and his words? Half way through, I wondered why Weinstein didn't sue for defamation of character, but by the end, if I were Weinstein, I'd be laughing my butt off at the poetic justice while saying: "Well done!" We follow Duffy, who was offered a movie deal with Weinstein, and even a tavern's through in. Too good to be true? Well, that's irrelevant to Duffy whose head grows so large, I expected a 'Scanners' explosion. I don't think there's another movie (documentary or not) where you wanted the main character, who spends more time cursing and smoking than writing/playing in the band, to fail so miserably. And when he does, probably more people clapped than even the (below average, thoroughly amateurish) movie it was based on. (I loved the "No one's buying my movie" cries – uh, did you actually watch it?)Side note: Yes, I understand it was more of documentary on the obviously distaste people had for Duffy and his scrambling to bury himself, never opening his eyes for two minutes to see what he was destructively accomplishing. However, more of the background on the actual making of the movie and less on the band no decent person would claim to admire would've been more appreciated. That said, you can't (or shouldn't) criticize a movie for what it's not meant to be. And so, I moved on for what I personally couldn't have and enjoyed watching someone so deservingly dig their own grave.Another one of the reasons I thought it was fake, was: could someone seriously blacklist themselves this horribly? (SEE: him call actors and agencies bad names, and definitely Weinstein, repeatedly, WHILE BEING FILMED.) I know there are plenty of people who feel the need to be blunt, brutally honest and have the "never back down" and "I'm entitled!" attitudes, but seriously, there must be a "flies with honey" balance. Or you will fail. I guess there could be pure evil out there, such as this turkey, and it's no wonder that the only other movie he's made is the sequel to the "cult hit" 'Saints' became. Yes, I can see 'Saints' became a cult it (I have my own guilty pleasures I can't explain) but I expected so much more out of it after all the arrogance Duffy showed throughout 'Overnight.' I saw a movie, 'Saints,' that showed a director/writer who had a lot of potential in the future, if given a few more chances. Unfortunately, Duffy shot both of his feet during the making of this movie, slammed dozens of doors and now, there's less of a chance for him to grow as a filmmaker. Pity.

I have to admit that I liked "Boondock Saints." I liked it because it was a Tarintino without the pretense that because you can engineer violent irony, you can make it engaging. I liked it because I knew that every actor was making up everything with no guidance. I liked it because it was a story of a mess that driven by the mechanics of messness, and that mechanics was visible as the point.Now here, we have the equivalent of "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse." Except this time the genius at the center is a moron who thinks he is a genius. There is a complete contrast from the attractive, nonsensical mess of "Boondock" and the grinding inevitable sense of this: jerk gets his due. It is simply a matter of watching the predictable grind through, with the only mildly interesting elements being a small glimpse into the movie business world. More interesting is the fact that we are watching something. We know that the band deal went sour. We know the movie deal did too. The documentary documents that. But it does not document itself. It turns out that the making of it was part of the deal, first supported out of pride and then out of sheer desperation for some money. The omission of the thing from the thing is glaring, and quite hypnotic.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

It was very satisfying for me, as somebody who has worked in the film industry for 20 years (behind the camera) and have been unfortunate enough to have spent time around massive s**t-stains like Troy Duffy (though not to this ridiculous extreme), to see a stupid, alcoholic f**k-o c**t like him get dragged under the wheels of the Hollywood machine. He doesn't deserve a second glance from anybody; his eternal punishment will be getting cast into utter obscurity because that seems to be what he's afraid of most. If it wasn't for "Overnight", he'd be assured of it. Now he will be remembered as a classic Hollywood joke. I had to restrain myself from punching my TV set whenever that douche-bag's face appeared on my screen. He wouldn't cut it as head of craft service on a real film set before he had his f***ing teeth knocked out, talking that s**t. I'm surprised his band mates/friends didn't beat his ugly ass. It actually makes me think they kind of deserved to have an dead albatross like Duffy hanging around their neck.

I was so looking forward to watching the documentary self-immolation of the mastermind behind Boondock Saints, one of the most aggravating and pointless movies I've ever seen. But the makers of "Overnight" - buddies (ex?) of the mastermind in question - also need to learn how to make a movie. Various unsavoury remarks, yelling obscenities into the phone, and enjoying his alcohol do indeed make Mr. Duffy look like a putz. But it doesn't shed any insight into why the guy got a contract in the first place, what his creative process or vision is - what's Boondock Saints even about? How hard is it to meet Patrick Swayze? What are these strange institutional machinations in which our disgusting heroes are caught? Because the film doesn't try to answer these questions in any coherent way, it doesn't end up having dippity-doo to say about Hollywood either. So who cares?