I love this photo. I don’t know why.

Photo credit: By Megalithicguy (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
I love this photo. I don’t know why.

Photo credit: By Megalithicguy (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
I can’t say I fully understand the zeal of “The Boondock Saints'” (1999) cult following, but I had fun with it — I’d give it an 8 out of 10 for being unusual and unexpectedly diverting.
I don’t really see it as a crime thriller — it’s more like an absurdly violent situation-comedy. It borrows its tone and style from 1994’s “Pulp Fiction,” not to mention its own shock-comedy throwaway scene involving an accidentally discharged sidearm.
Like its superior inspiration, its formula is creating quirky, likable characters with some funny dialogue, and then raising the tension by placing them in the midst of graphic violence. It mostly succeeds — Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus’ characters are endearing, cool and easy to root for. I laughed out loud a few times, and I can see how their telegenic antiheroes would attract a devoted fandom.
The directing seemed choppy and even amateurish. I noticed this right from the opening credits, which are awkwardly spliced with the onscreen introduction of the main characters.
The screenwriting is a little spotty, too — we’re never told, for example, how its two protagonists come to be such proficient assassins. (Are they former military? Is there a joke here I’m missing about them being “blessed,” consistent with the “saints” motif and all the references to Catholicism?) Nor do we get much meaningful information about their motivations. (Their bloody crusade begins only when they kill several gangsters in self-defense, then they seem to pursue a life of vigilantism as an afterthought.) Finally, our antiheroes seem refreshingly real and identifiable, while other characters (Willem Dafoe’s detective and Billy Connolly’s mafia hitman) seem cartoonish enough to populate a farce like “The Naked Gun” series).
Again, though — this was fun. I’d recommend it.

![]()
Oil on canvas.

Attributes of Chos-Skyon Dam-can rDo-rje Legs-pa (Vajrasadhu) in a Tibetan “rgyan tshogs” banner.

I wish my cellphone camera were a little better — it just can’t do justice to those snow clouds among the peaks in the distance.




Credit for the name of the mountain where we live goes to my girlfriend; I named the house — “Winterfell.” I’m naming a lot of things after “Game of Thrones” this winter. (Because it is “Coming.”) Remember I shared a picture of the vestigial remains of shack, in which only a strewn roof was still intact? That I dubbed “Craster’s Keep.” And I am starting to think of Lynchburg as “King’s Landing.”
This was only the initial powdering last Friday — of course the snow became much heavier that night.





Judging from the things pushed or upended, there is either an angry ghost in our attic or the cats are flying into a goddam nightly roid rage while we sleep.
I’m not sure which scenario is more disturbing.
Then again, I’m not sure which scenario is more disturbingly awesome.
Poster by Georges-Antoine Rochegrosse (1859-1938) for the première of Gustave Charpentier’s Louise at the Théâtre National de l’Opéra-Comique in Paris in 1900.
