Black Christmas

I know I will get heat for having enjoyed Black Christmas 2006. Hell, I can't really even call this a "good" movie. It is severely flawed in many ways, and it's not even closely comparable to the original. Monster holes are present in the story line. The cinematography at times is choppy, dark, and grainy. And, most of all, there is ZERO suspense. How can a movie with such negativity possibly get a 7 out of 10?Well, technical goofs aside, there is a lot of fun to be had here!

It has a completely different atmosphere and tone than the original had, as well as a completely different approach at it's villain. For one, the violence and murders in the 2006 version are much gorier and more over the top! Okay, so the original's approach at implied violence worked much better, but I appreciated the filmmaker's aiming for something different! I had a lot of fun watching Billy maim and dismember all of the sorority girls and their boyfriends! The kills were absolutely crazy! A lot of blood splashing!

Unfortunately, the characters here, unlike in 1974, are purely 2-dimensional and unforgivably stupid. However, the performances were very well done, and there were some truly witty lines of dialogue! One thing this film reaped was dark humor! Much appreciated! I especially LOVED the performance done by Billy's mother! She was the best actress in the film and unfortunately had the least screen time.

Also different from the original is the fact that Billy is identified and his origin is revealed. Again, this completely takes away the suspense and mystery of the killer like the original's had. BUT, the flashback scenes were very well done! It really got to you and was disturbing to say the least. It also did a very good job of portraying a morbid family. Well done on that part!

Again, as I said before, there is NO suspense here! The violence and scares are pretty much laughable, but that's why this film is fun! It's so bad and flawed that it's a riot and a good time! My advice: Think of it as a completely different film. In no way does this hurt the original. The 1974 version still exists. The 2006 version will go nowhere, but it will always remain a fun little piece of cheese to watch whenever anyone wants to have a good time.

Many years ago, a mistreated boy named Billy Lenz slaughtered his family in a one-house killing spree. Not surprisingly, this had him committed to an asylum. Since then, his house has been converted into a sorority house. And this Christmas, Billy wants to be home with his family to celebrate.

Let me say a few nice things before I start venting. First, I have to say I must have been a very good boy this year because I can't recall such an attractive cast in the recent past. Three of my all-time favorite young ladies show up here: Michelle Trachtenberg ("Eurotrip"), Lacey Chabert ("Pleasure Drivers"), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (numerous recent horror films, including "Final Destination 3"). It was quite the visual feast!

I also enjoyed the inclusion of Andrea Martin as Ms. MacHenry, the house mother. Martin was one of the college girls from the original film and I think it's important to pay some sort of tribute like this (as well as the use of "Clark Sanitarium"). She was a good pick, better than Margot Kidder.

And the use of incest and cannibalism is always a plus (both of which were absent in the original)... and the gore was decent (though not great) with the constant eye-gouging thanks to a glass unicorn. I do love unicorns, as my embroidered unicorn pillow might suggest. While I do not think it was intentional, I appreciate how the unicorn reminded me of another great classic, "The Abominable Dr. Phibes".

But let's start the ripping: Glen Morgan was probably the wrong guy to direct this. He brought along cast members from his prior films (again, such as "Final Destination 3") which was fine, but seemed to put very little thought into any of this. And his films have more of a teenager quality to them, making even the gore, incest and cannibalism seem very youth-oriented, if that makes any sense. R-Rated or not, this was meant for teens to watch. He could have really stepped it up a dozen notches.

The girls get little or no personalities. I don't think I learned half of their names and had difficulty keeping them straight. Maybe reduce the number by one or two so we could at least see them for ten minutes? On the flip side, the film focused almost entirely on Billy Lenz, providing his entire back story. The original never touched on this at all, which made him creepier and more mysterious. Here, there's nothing strange about him (besides the yellow skin and eyes, which play no importance). Obviously, Morgan never learned the secret of good horror: don't show the killer.

Furthermore, they wasted the character of the boyfriend Kyle (who was named Peter in the original). Here, he is briefly thought by the girls to be the killer, but the audience knows the whole time that he's not. In the original, you never know whether or not Peter is the killer (in fact, many people who watched all the way to the end still aren't sure). If Kyle isn't a red herring, and his only purpose is to bring up some sex tape which was not important to the story (despite being shown again and again), then what the hell was he doing in the movie at all?

Other great elements from the original were toned down: the police station scenes, the drunk girl (who now passes out right away). And a shower scene was added, but no explicit nudity, making it almost a complete waste of time.

I'll stop before I start frothing at the mouth. Because, seriously, I was let down. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this movie, but it was clearly the teen remake (not unlike the newer "When A Stranger Calls"). If you need a fix of girls getting strangled with a plastic bag and stabbed in the eye (and that's really all you'll see), check this out. Otherwise, you'll find plenty of great slashers out there on the video shelf. And, of course, you simply cannot beat the original "Black Christmas", one of the best horror films ever made.

In 1974, Bob Clarke's Black Xmas kick-started the teenage slasher sub-genre. The seasonal slasher went on to leave an impression on John Carpenter, who years later gave us Halloween. So, do I expect to be disappointed with a remake of such an iconic cult classic? It is hard to get excited over teenage slasher films these days, but Glen Morgan reinstalled that excitement. Billy Lenz has just been released from a mental institution and is looking to find his childhood home where he was abused by his mother. However, the house is now occupied by the sorority sisters. With the students unaware of the troubled history of the house and a deranged killer seeking revenge, it's a race against time for the college girls to survive. An aspect of this movie that makes it stand out is that it delves into Billy's backstory and it gives the film more depth. The sorority sisters each have something different to bring to the table, this makes it easier to get a bond with the characters. As the producers were responsible for films such as Final Destination, I was hoping for gory scenes and I received them. Overall, yes, it is predictable at times, but it is worth the watch and has a decent twist at the end.

Black Christmas (2006) uncut U.S. version

*** (out of 4)

Incredibly violent and rather trashy remake of Bob Clark's 1974 classic does what any remake should do; it offers us something new. The basic storyline is still in place but this remake goes for a totally different approach to the subject matter and with all the insane violence in this film it's really no wonder there was so much protest when this was released last Christmas. The story is pretty simply as a group of college girls are in their house and are eventually picked off one by one. There's no doubt that the 1974 version is a better made movie that features better director and better acting but style is not what this remake went for. Instead of style and atmosphere this remake gives us non-stop violence, which is so gory and over the top that you can help enjoy it on that level. Yes, there are many plot holes here as new characters are introduced by for a slasher film this pretty much delivers all the goods. The one interesting change to this film is that we see flashbacks of what happened to the killer when he was a child. At first I didn't know what these scenes were trying to do but they add to a few plot twists that make them worth watching. There are several references to the first film including the rocking chair and the attic as well as references to various other early slashers. The film also takes a very strong hatred feel towards religion and Christmas as there are several scenes talking bad about the two and other scenes where statues of Jesus are shown falling and various other things. I'm not sure how much of the violence made it into the theatrical version but this uncut version is pretty damn brutal with some incredibly graphic violence (including some to kids) and a sexual situation that I won't spoil since it's part of a plot change. Again, if you want a classy horror film then stick with the original. If you just want an old fashioned slasher with a pinch of a Euro giallo then this film is right up your alley.

Whoa. This is one of the gnarliest, nastiest, most gratuitous displays of violence I have ever seen! And I loved every minute of it! Going into this I was expecting very little due to the piss poor ratings, but the original is one of my favorite slashers of all time so I had to watch it. They absolutely nailed the Christmas vibe with the glowing lights, the booze, and the constant downpour of fake snow. As messed up as it is, I've always found the houses in both movies to be very cozy/comforting. The mid 2000's are on full display here as the blood and guts are amped up to highest degree. This movie has some of the most brutal, bloodiest, gruesome deaths put to screen. Unfortunately the ambiguity element is absent from this version and everyone involved knows who's on the other end of the killings. Did the backstory of billy need to be explained? Did he need to be yellow? Can we chill on the eye gouging? No, but I thought they did a decent job for what they were working with. From a film standpoint there are obvious gripes, but from a slasher perspective what's not to love?!