Natal Negro

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?!

After the shock caused by the utter trash, labeled as the 2nd remake of Black Christmas, i recently rewatched the 2006 one and it holds up surprisingly well. The characters aren't memorable or reletable, but the typical 2000s slasher tropes work very well, the gore is more then sattisfying the twist is okayish.

Its very well worth a watvch, if you know what to expect.

Earlier this year, I tore the re-make of When A Stranger Calls apart, and said at the time, that if Hollywood won't bother making new horror movies, but instead simply re-make old or foreign ones, then just stop. I stand by that.

However...

Black Christmas actually surprised me. First, it was actually a lot more brutal and violent than I was expecting, considering it's 15 rating (UK). The other, was the way it re-worked the original.

The original, which I haven't seen for awhile was as much a whodunit as anything else. Here we're spared that. We know pretty much from the start who is killing here.

What the makers have done, is simply turn the story into a stalk and slash movie, which as I said is quite brutal in areas. For me a movie of this type stands or falls not on the killer or how they kill, but on the potential victims in the story. If you care about them, then you feel bad they are killed. If you don't, then give me an axe, I'll do it myself!! Black Christmas does enough to make you care about each character, by making each one a little different, but yet, having enough in character to make you believe they could get along normally. So when the killing starts, you do care about them, and begin to wonder who, or how many will make it to the end alive.

The death scenes are well set up and done, which isn't surprising considering the makers also did Final Destination 1 & 3. If I have a problem with them is that the film is maybe a little over-edited so at times, you aren't sure if certain characters have been killed or not.

This movie has been getting a critical mauling in certain areas. But I found on watching it, that it's fun, enjoyable, with a black(!) sense of humour, some very nice looking actresses in it!, and for it's (admittedly short) running time very entertaining. And when I go to see a movie like this, that's what I want.

Enjoyable late-night fun.

Some movies are very confident in their ability to do many things right, thus ensuring an intriguing experience. A movie like "Black Christmas," however, is mostly confident in its ability to do many things wrong, yet still remain watchable on some bizarre level. Needless to say, it's an overhaul of the seminal 1974 slasher of the same name, in which a lonely sorority house is besieged by a killer making obscene phone-calls from the attic over the holidays. The 2006 version takes this premise and attempts to build a backstory around murderer Billy Lentz, who remained a shadowy specter throughout Bob Clark's film. I have to give writer-director Glen Morgan credit: while this bit of character development is wildly uneven (including giving Billy a sister-in-madness), it is consistent with the wildly inconsistent rest of the film. Morgan brought a strong sense of macabre humor and visual style (I dare call it "Burtonesuqe") to his exceptional remake of "Willard" (helped by Crispin Glover's delightfully wacky performance), but his stylistic leanings are simply the wrong match for a "Black Christmas" remake. There is not a single suspenseful scene to be found, and the violence is so exaggerated that it defuses any horrific effect (seriously, a killer who eats eyeballs?); additionally, the characters are so ill-defined that it's hard to keep track of who's who (had the number of girls been whittled down the point where they had actual personalities, we might have actually given a damn about them). And, for a slasher film coming in the wake of "Scream" and its kindred, "Black Christmas" just shows a general lack of common sense when an obvious threat is lurking (can you really feel sorry for a security guard who lingers in a maniac's room long enough to get knocked off?). But in an odd way, "Black Christmas" avoids the oblivion of crappy horror remakes due to Morgan's impassioned, assured sense of visual style–that being said, it's nowhere near as good as its predecessor.

4.5 out of 10

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.