Black Christmas (2006)

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

Fmovies: Ok, so I came to review this version of Black Christmas, since the 2019 version was complete trash. This movie is such an underrated film, and definitely deserves more stars!! I've always enjoyed this version. If you want gore and violence, then this movie is for you! It's a good slasher film!

I had very high expectations for this film. I thought that this might be the one "Re-make" that is the exception because of the involvement of the original film maker, Bob Clark, serving as assistant producer. BOY was I wrong!!! There are some exceptional murder sequences in this flick but that is not enough. Once again, as is the case in so many "Re-makes" the storyline has been almost completely changed! The producers do not seem to realize the elements that made the original film scary in the first place which are now missing! Such as the fact that, in the original you were never quite sure who the killer was and they never revealed it. Now not only do they reveal it, but they add an entire background that is so laughably unbelievable that it dilutes the film's ability to frighten the viewer. The over-the-top gore sequences alone do not make for a frightening movie and the "twist" ending is quite laughable! What they add to the ending of this movie is utterly ridiculous and absolutely unnecessary! Aside from exceptional gore effects, the only other saving grace is the presence of Andrea Martin from the original film as Mrs. Mack but they should have really tried harder to make the characters from the original more like those in the original...and the phone calls, a crucial element to the terrifying experience of the original, are absolutely laughable! Skip this one and watch the original.

Black Christmas fmovies. 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.

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