IMDb user comments for
Black Christmas (2006) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 26:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

259 comments in total

---

45 out of 69 people found the following comment useful :-
What an insult to the original!, 16 December 2006
Author: Rents (Renty_Loves_Christmas) from London, England

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Let me just say that the original Black Christmas (1974) has always been my favorite horror film. It is an amazing piece of work all around and it has deservedly become a cult classic among horror aficionados. I knew that there would be no hope for this remake. It's absolutely offensive.

The acting is horrendous. Katie Cassidy (who lacks talent completely, unlike her famous relatives, including Oscar-winner Shirley Jones of Elmer Gantry [1960] and The Music Man [1962] fame) is horrible. Two bad films in the same year, the remake of When a Stranger Calls (2006) being her first. The others are just cookie-cutter characters and they bring nothing to elevate the picture. The only good thing about this film is Andrea Martin, who played Phyllis in the original, making an appearance in a recreation of Mrs. MacHenry, the housemother, played so wonderfully by Marian Waldman.

The original and its acting were great. Olivia Hussey as Jessica was fantastic, and this helped cement her fame, having made waves by playing Juliet in Romeo & Juliet (1968). Margot Kidder played Barb, the hilarious drunk, and to think that this wonderful performance came at the BEGINNING of her celebrated career, with such parts as Lois Lane in the Superman series (1978-1987) alongside Christopher Reeve, the maniacal killer in Brian DePalma's Sisters (1973) and Kathy Lutz in The Amityville Horror (1979). Another cast member of the original was Keir Dullea, who played Dave Bowman of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). You will notice that all of those actors were quite established and knew how to make a film worthwhile. This film is just atrocious. Changing the names of all the characters will not help it.

Neither will adding a back-story to Billy, I'm afraid. In the original, what made Billy so frightening was the fact that we didn't know anything about him. He was killing because he was just CRAZY—he didn't NEED a motive! The fact that someone is stalking you just because they feel like it is much more unsettling than to know WHY they're doing it.

The adding of so much blood, gore and violence is irrelevant as well. The original didn't need all of that. There was hardly any blood, gore, violence, or sexual content at all and it still made for a great film. Please. Some of the scenes in this film are absolutely comical! I swear; it's bordering between an idiotic gore-fest and a parody.

One final point—in the original, you actually CARE about the characters. All of their portrayals made you want to reach out and pluck them from their situation, particularly Hussey's and Kidder's performances.

Go pop the original into your DVD player—this is definitely not worth the time.

---

63 out of 106 people found the following comment useful :-
enjoy, but don't take seriously!, 18 December 2006

Author: kevin_crighton (kevincrighton@btinternet.com) from Scotland

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.

---

22 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
An Incredibly Flawed Remake of the Bob Clark Classic, 7 April 2007

Author: Gavin Schmitt (gavin6942@yahoo.com) from Kaukauna, Wisconsin

Many years ago, a killer named Billy Lenz killed his family in a spree killing. 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 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.

But let's start the ripping: Glen Morgan was 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. 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 backstory. 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, which plays no importance). Obviously, Morgan never learned the secret of good horror: don't show the killer.

Furthermore, they wasted the character of 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, then what the hell was he doing in the movie at all?

Other great elements were toned down: the police station scenes, the drunk girl (who now passes out right away). And a shower scene was added, but no 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 pretty badly. 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 better slashers out there every week on the straight-to-video shelf. And, of course, you simple cannot beat the original "Black Christmas", one of the best horror films ever made.

---

15 out of 16 people found the following comment useful :-
We needed one more "Alternate" in the Bonus Features, 16 April 2007

Author: CMUltra (collectormanultra@yahoo.com) from US and Japan

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I know by now that when you watch a teen slasher movie you cannot set high expectations. If I go into it expecting the usual formula (a deranged killer separates the hapless youngsters and kills them one-by-one in horrible ways) then it should be fine. Somehow, though, Black Christmas managed to disappoint me anyway.

I don't, for example, expect the acting to be stellar. Honestly, even if there are a few skilled actors hidden among the T&A the typical slasher script is not going to lend itself to them flexing any dramatic muscles. But, please. Oliver Hudson played the Kyle character so laughably wooden that it was really annoying. And, what happened to Lacy Chabert? She was touted at one time as being "one of the most promising young actresses" but we find her in this dismal mess as not only one of the generic victims, but also one that gets offed halfway through the movie. No, even by slasher standards, the performances are uniformly horrible.

Ah well, there's the gore right? That's the real reason to watch a slasher flick. Strike two for Black Christmas here. And I watched the "Unrated" version. I can only imagine how tame and unimaginative the theatrical "R" version must have been. The one big thing seemed to be the eyeball. Everyone had their eye plucked out, or poked out or even shoved through the back of their head. But, if you're going to make that your central gore theme, at least know the eye. They're actually pretty delicate organs, easily punctured and drained. In Black Christmas they were plucked out and waved about on ridiculously fake looking stalks or, as mentioned, shoved through heads, all the while remaining perfectly intact. The eyes held up so well that the killer used them as Christmas tree ornaments. There was a scene in Alias (Season 4 I think) where, because the writers understood the nature of the eye, Marshall's plucking of one caused far more discomfort without the viewer actually seeing any of the gore than all of Black Christmas' fake splatter combined.

Okay, well, how about the story? Your slasher flick needs a killer with a background so twisted that, in retribution, you can only imagine the terror he or she is going to visit on the victims. Strike three, and Black Christmas is out. Billy Lenz is never going to have to worry about being mentioned in the same breath as Vorhees, Myers or Krueger. He was a kid whose mother, with her boyfriend, murdered his father. She knew Billy witnessed them burying the father but we didn't see her do anything violent to him. She made him stay in the attic and even went up to have sex with him. Eh… that's twisted but not in the way to spawn a slasher-flick villain. Oh wait, Billy was also born with a rare liver disease that made his skin yellow. This didn't really matter as most of his scenes were far too darkly lit to notice. Okay but he did have a daughter/sister from his union with mom. She also turned into a slasher-flick villainess. *yawn* It's all really just weak. Including the movie's catchphrase, hissed repeatedly by both killers, "(Insert victim's name here) is in our family noooowwww!" Okay. Whatever.

After the credits finally rolled we hopped over to the bonus features as I always like to watch the theatrical trailer after I've seen a movie. I don't like to watch them beforehand, as trailers now tend to give away plot points. That wouldn't have been an issue here of course, but I enjoy seeing the trailers to see what key elements they decided would be the most useful in convincing folks to see the movie. I noticed in the bonus features that they included an "Alternate Ending". I didn't bother watching it but it made me wish they had included a link to an "Alternate Movie". A better one.

---

20 out of 27 people found the following comment useful :-
Should have been called Silent Night, Deadly Night 6, 7 April 2007

Author: sgtking from United States

After finally seeing the original for the first time and after seeing the trailer for this film I was more than a little excited to see it. Even the negative reviews couldn't keep me from seeing it on the big screen. To my dismay the film was not all that great. Even on it's own merits it was just an OK popcorn horror movie, but nothing more. Everyone knows about the re-shoots, and so naturally I hoped for a Director's Cut DVD so that we could all see the film that Glen Morgan intended to make. Sadly that hasn't happened, yet, but we did get an Un-rated version and after seeing it my opinion has changed...a little.

Pros: Moves at a decent pace most of the time. The kills are abundant, intense, and gory. There's plenty of that gore too. The acting is quite good, especially when considering what little the actors had to work with. Some twisted humor. The film looks polished and most of it is shrouded in darkness, giving the film a spooky feeling. An interesting back-story. An exciting climax. The sight of carnage with Christmas decorations and music in the background should warm the hearts of horror fans everywhere. The filmmakers do a good job of not making this a xerox copy of the original.

Cons: Lacks good scares and suspense. Also lacks character development and some of the characters are unlikeable. Pace drags in a few spots. There are signs of re-shooting. Though the back-story is interesting it's also not necessary and makes the killer less scary. Some plot holes.

Final thoughts: This remake of the beloved 1974 film has more in common with the 'Silent Night, Deadly Night' series than the original. That's not to say it isn't a fun watch, but it's in a completely different league than the original. That film is subtle, suspenseful, and has depth, whereas this remake is tacky, gory, and brainless. Not that I don't like that, but this is supposed to be a remake of classic! To be fair, word has it that the producers called for re-shoots and more editing, which may explain some of the film's faults. Overall, a good popcorn movie, but nothing more.

My rating: 3/5

---

30 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
Scooby Doo has more compelling believable story lines, 8 February 2007

Author: (lee.wilson@gmail.com) from United Kingdom

I am a fan of all sorts of horror films including stalker / slasher type movies and this is perhaps the worst modern example of one of these I have ever sat through. None of the characters are likable so you do not care if they are murdered, in fact there is so little character development that they are all interchangeable. Despite some reasonable gore there is so little tension that it drags on for what seems like hours.

In the end it simply does not work because of so many unbelievable situations. They are stalked around a sorority house that is miles from anywhere (are you not supposed to share these to live NEAR a campus ?). Even when dead bodies start to pile up they still go off into the dark on their own to check out noises !!! Every situation is ridiculous, how the killer fools the guard at the asylum for example. No one would ever act in the way the guard does and this theme follows the whole film through.

You do wonder how the inept script was ever green lighted. One to avoid, even for fans of the genre.

---

39 out of 68 people found the following comment useful :-
So it's not the original...but there's plenty of fun to be had here!, 5 January 2007

Author: NateF88 from IL

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.

---

13 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
By slasher standards, this was pretty average and forgettable, 16 January 2007

Author: christian123

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

In "Black Christmas" a sorority house is terrorized by a killer who makes frightening telephone calls before murdering the sorority sisters during the Christmas break.

Black Christmas is a bland slasher film with very few scares. The original was a mediocre horror film with a decent screenplay. It's a little overrated but at least it developed the story and characters instead of just rushing into the murders. That's what this remake does. It's pretty much a disturbing bloodbath from beginning to end with very few memorable scenes. The frantic pace does keep things interesting and it never gets dull. However, watching so many vacant characters die before you get a chance to remember their names does not equal quality. At best, this could be a minor guilty pleasure although I really have no desire to see it again.

Glen Morgan did a great job with Final Destination and Willard. Here, he's just lazy and he follows a typical path for slasher movies. As mentioned above, he does an okay job with the pace and I have to give him credit for a few cool death scenes but that's it. The writing was awful and it really brought the overall quality down. The dialog was silly and just laughable. All of the dramatic scenes fell flat because of the unnatural dialog. The way the writers handled the background of the killers was pathetic and the last fifteen minutes were horrible. It wasn't suspenseful at all, just unintentionally funny. The killers looked like rejected stunt doubles for White Chicks.

Usually, I can ignore awful acting in slasher movies since it's not suppose to be the main attraction. In Black Christmas, the acting was too bad to ignore. Kate Cassidy was just awful as Kelli. She seemed to be reading her lines and it was obvious that she was just acting. Kristen Cloke gave the worst performance out of everyone. All of those botox injections are really taking a toll on her and she struggled to show emotion. Clearly, she got the job because she is married to the director or is that just a coincidence? Michelle Trachtenberg was just bland as was Crystal Lowe and Oliver Hudson. Mary Elizabeth Winstead was fine in Bobby but she was just horrible here. She was completely unconvincing and just laughable. Lacey Chabert was disappointing average and she didn't get a lot of screen time. Andrea Martin gave the best performance although that's not much of an accomplishment. Overall, Black Christmas may prove to be a decent rental just don't have high expectations and expect something trashy. Rating 5/10

---

37 out of 65 people found the following comment useful :-
It won't win awards but great fun anyway., 16 December 2006

Author: Sky_Rider from United Kingdom

There's been a lot of negativity about this film, I never saw the original but i did think this film looked interesting after watching the trailer.

Basically, this film is pure fun, it won't win any awards but it is enjoyable. It isn't scary but the over the top kills and gore make this film enjoyable to watch with friends.

The acting is pretty good and the film tries it's best to establish each character before the main bloodshed begins. I'd say my favourite characters were Melissa and Lauren, I like Melissa because of her loyalty and i liked Lauren because she had cracking lines.

One of the bad things about this film is the slightly repetitive kills, OKAY! we get you like eyeballs!!!!! but i won't go to much detail here. One of the things the film did well was making you grow somewhat attached to the characters (apart from Kelli, she was just bland).

Overall I'd say, go to this film if you like slasher films but don't go expecting a masterpiece. But for what it is, i thought it was a blast to watch, especially with a group of friends.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
The most mind numbingly retarded movie I've ever seen..., 5 January 2007

Author: theshadow908 from London, Ontario

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Black Christmas is the remake of the 1974 horror classic about a group of sorority girls who are menaced by a killer on Christmas Eve. However, where the original had a simple plot that involved a killer in the attic making creepy phone calls to the girls before the killing starts. Well, I guess the makers of this version decided that wasn't hip enough. That wasn't "2006 generic slasher movie" enough, so they added a bogus back story and some twisted elements, and we got worthless, mindless dreck.

Everything that made the original good was gone in this movie. The first movie had everything. Point of view shots for the killer so we never actually see him. In the original we know nothing about the killer or his motives. We have to piece together our own back story through his phone calls. There are suspects throughout the movie who we think the killer could be. There's a detective investigating the calls. All of the girls are likable. In this version we are treated to a handful of unlikeable characters. We know who the killer is right away, and a ridiculous back story is spoon fed to us. It involves Billy (the killer in the original) witnessing his mother kill his father. His mother remarries and keeps him locked in the attic until one night she decides to have sex with him. Billy fathers his little sister, and then when she's six he stabs her eye out and kills his mother and step father. Agnes ends up in the sorority house and ends up committing most of the murders, and Billy, who is SUPPOSED to be the main killer, plays second fiddle and does basically nothing. Even the "calls are coming from in the house" twist is gone.

The writing is just god awful, and it shows what the writers think teenagers are like nowadays. It's wonderful seeing such brilliantly thought out dialogue as "Guys, it's, like, Christmas Eve". The acting isn't any better. The only remotely okay acting comes from Andrea Martin who is in here to pay respect to the original, but it's useless. This is the worst acting I've seen in a horror movie since the Saw trilogy.

Stay far away from this mess. It's complete disrespect to a classic horror film.

1/10

---

---

Page 1 of 26:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history