Silent Night, Bloody Night 2: Revival

I knew going in that it was a no-budget indie effort and set my expectations accordingly. I think that's the key to enjoying any movie like this. Jennifer Runyon, niece-in-law of Roger Corman and star of another cult Christmas horror classic To All a Goodnight is in this and elevates it some with her presence. There are a lot of flashbacks to the first movie (maybe a few too many) but I like the way they are all sepia toned instead of just the actual flashback from the original movie itself...which I guess would be a flashback within a flashback?

Anyway, I really thought the crew did a great job of making this come together and the passion behind it really shows. That's what I love most about these movies. The Black Peter santa mask was also pretty creepy and there's a couple of lovely homemade gore scenes. Probably would have rated higher if there had been a little less flashback stuff, but I'm still happy there's a sequel and will absolutely watch it again this holiday season!

Silent Night, Deadly Night 2 (2015)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Angelica (Julia Farrell) and her brother James (Luc Bernier) return to East Willard to pay their respects to a dead loved one. They end up staying at a bed and breakfast (ran by Jennifer Runyon Corman) where they start to look into their past and learn about a bizarre set of murders in 1972.

You know, it's pretty amazing to think that 1972's SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT was originally released without too much praise. Over the years it ended up in the public domain so many horror fans started to rediscover it and before long it became a cult favorite. The cult following got the film remade in 2013 and then this direct sequel followed. No, this isn't a direct sequel to the 2013 film. This here is actually a direct sequel to the 1972 film.

Is this movie any good? Not really but I think there are some good things scattered throughout. The film was obviously working on a very low-budget, which is most evident when it comes to the murder scenes. The death scenes are all rather cheap and especially one scene with a rubber hand. Another problem with the budget is that it appears they couldn't shoot too much footage because there's a lot of footage used from the original movie. At first I was thinking of praising the film because it wasn't using too much footage from the first movie but then the final thirty minutes are pretty much taken from the 1972 film. I mean, you pretty much get to see the entire ending of that picture!

Some might think that was needed since a lot of people might not remember that film's events but I think it could have been handled in a much better way where we aren't given twenty-plus minutes worth of re-used footage. With all of that said, I thought there was some good things here. Director Dustin Ferguson and writer John Klyza deserve credit for at least attempting to make a direct sequel. I thought the screenplay offered up some nice ideas to build on what we saw in the original and Ferguson does a nice job considering the budget he had.

I also thought both Farrell and Bernier were good in their parts. Sometimes in these low-budget movies it's hard to really give any type of performance but I thought both were fine. Jennifer Runyon Cormon, best remembered for TO ALL A GOODNIGHT, UP THE CREEK and GHOSTBUSTERS, appears in a pretty big role and it was nice seeing her. Some of the supporting players are rather bad but none of them are in big enough of roles to where it really effects the film.

SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT 2 isn't a complete success but at the same time there are a few interesting ideas. I just wish there wasn't so much footage from the original film used.

During Christmastime in East Willard, Massachusetts, two siblings visit their older brother's grave and stay at a family's house where they learn of the legend of Black Peter, Santa's dark brother. But it's the lost journal of a man named Jeffrey Butler that's really horrifying because it concerns the town's real-life creepy past.

"Silent Night, Bloody Night 2: Revival" (2015) is a sequel to the original movie from 43 years earlier and is not connected to the no-budget British remake from 2013 called "Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming," which only cost $20,000.

This one didn't have much more money to play with; I can't find a specific amount, but even if it was over twice that, say $50,000, this is a spare change budget flick. The original film was made in December-March, 1970-71, and cost $295,000, which would be $2.3 million in today's dollars (2024), which means it had more than enough resources for a competent film. Regrettably, this can't be said for this one.

While Julia Farrell is a worthy protagonist as Angelica Zacherly, it's otherwise strapped with bad acting and dull writing. It's also visually unappealing, totally lacking the creepy mood of the original. When the most interesting parts of a flick is the reused footage from its predecessor, it's not a good sign.

Speaking of which, close to a third of the runtime involves footage from that original movie, which smacks of the lousy "Silent Night, Deadly Night 2." But at least the footage here is sepia toned.

I only recommend this if you're an uber-devotee of the first film and don't mind really low-budget Indies.

It runs about 1 hour, 27 minutes, and was shot in Nebraska, which is a dubious substitute for New England (at least the original was shot around Oyster Bay on northwestern Long Island).

GRADE: D+

Considering I didn't like the original at all, I didn't expect to enjoy a sequel made decades later.

And I didn't.

This is barely a new movie. The majority of this is just footage from the original, just with a yellow color filter over the footage and narration explaining what happened. This was one of the laziest attempts at filmmaking I've ever seen. You could watch any type of killer Santa film and it'll be better than this.

There's literally no reason to watch this unless you just enjoy torturing yourself. It has extremely amateur performances from all around and it's simply not worth your time.

Arriving at their parents' house for Christmas, a woman and her brother realize that a strange series of killings around town are connected to a local legend from forty years earlier involving a killer Santa striking the town and must find a way to solve the mystery in order to stop the killings.

This was a rather enjoyable genre follow-up. Among the better features is the solid setup that allows for a nice homage to the original while tying things into a new storyline. The lengthy flashback detailing the events of the original and how the killer was diagnosed, confined, and released to set himself out on his rampage makes for a great connection to the antics played up here as the events described go a long way towards demonstrating the madness that set the original killer off. Bringing it around full-circle with how the family is connected to the killer and trying to demonstrate how the events are connected in the town makes for a fun time. There's also quite a lot to like with the enjoyable slasher set pieces when they arrive. Featuring a series of indie-flavored stalking scenes of the killer Santa appearing out of nowhere and striking unaware victims in graphic means, these scenes are usually quite fun here. The attack in the living room out into the front yard amongst the crowd of carolers or the killer striking the family in the house offer some enjoyable setpieces which are used to bolster the second half quite nicely with the chilling imagery of the killer at work for some frenetic scenes here, all making for a lot to like with this one. There are some minor factors that bring this one down. One of the few flaws here is the slow-burning pace on display that tends to keep a lot of the action off-screen during the first half. Since a large portion of the running time here is spent on going through the flashback in a fashion that fills in the backstory but does so with very little involving the current state of action. Most of the film is spent with this backstory flashback that takes up way too much of the running time establishing something that could've been done in a much more succinct and compact fashion without resorting to half the film being flashbacks. The other slight drawback to this one comes from the decision to incorporate the flashbacks from the original but change around the fates of characters for new purposes. Since this one very obviously changes around the fate of several individuals in some rather egregious choices simply to make the plot work, and while this makes for a fun connection to the original the logistics of doing so doesn't always require that rewriting. As well, despite the numerous kills throughout the film it manages to feature some rather weak effects-work on the kills that speak to its lower budget that all lower this one slightly.

Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.