Black Christmas (2006) User Reviews

"I'm not dreaming of a Black Christmas..."

[Jonny_Numb · 5/10 · 21 June 2008]

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

We needed one more "Alternate" in the Bonus Features

[CMUltra · 4/10 · 16 April 2007]

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.

A Modestly Flawed Remake of the Bob Clark Classic

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 7 April 2007]

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.

Making a slasher film isn't an excuse to write/direct like an utter imbecile.

[fedor8 · 17 March 2008]

BC is precisely what the dumbed-down masses deserve. I have no idea what the original is like, but it can only be better than this incredibly uninvolving and dull garbage.

A bunch of bickering females, realizing they're in danger, refuse to leave the house - even though it's a house in which mass-murder was committed - and instead decide to hang around so that they can be butchered one-by-one. (It's the old Eddie Murphy "if the house is haunted, get the f*** out!" line.) Everything that occurs in this typical slasher film, the worst of all horror genres, is cretinous and no amount of "spicing it up" with cannibalism and incest can change that.

The supposedly major twist at the end is that the killer's sister/daughter is in the house, too; only a moron could not see that coming. Even worse, Agnes is played by a man, and rather large man. I have no idea what they were thinking. Agnes was shown to be an ugly girl at 12, but not MANLY. There is no explanation as to when or why this creature decided to have sex-change surgery, accompanied with massive, almost Mickeyrourkian (or Cheresque) facial surgery.

Nothing makes sense, but even a silly little slasher film needs to have a semblance of logic. It isn't quite clear why Agnes decided to help Billy kill utter strangers, when she has every reason to avenge her lost eye by chopping off Billy's own head. So basically Agnes was grateful to her brother for having attacked her so viciously, is she?...

However, if you think the makers of this crap-o-rama were satisfied with boring you only with cretinous house activities, think again. The movie decides to drag on by resurrecting the brother/sister-father/daughter couple in a hospital morgue, after which the two proceed to find the only remaining survivors with ease that even those who designed the building couldn't muster. Plus, I never quite understood why they'd so single-mindedly go for the blonde and the brunette, when they had a plethora of staff and other patients to kill.

Did you know that an ice-cone falling from only a meter above you will pierce your flesh like soft butter? Apparently, the women all had very soft heads, which is something I can't disagree with...

I also love the way Billy escaped the lunatic asylum. If all madhouse guards were this dumb then all such asylums would be empty all the time.

Apparently, when a madhouse guard is killed, it takes about ten weeks for anyone to find the body and alert the police.

If it was snowing that much and the roads were blocked, then how the hell did Agnes and Billy get to the house? Surely they never had the time to learn to drive. Or maybe they just took a bus. Or grew wings and flew. Or maybe both of them were locked up in hospitals that were conveniently close to the house. Mere meters away...

Surely a candidate for one of the worst horror film of all time.

tedious crap

[richanthon-1 · 1/10 · 20 December 2006]

the original was mind blowing brilliant. this is one awful remake. do not believe any of the good reviews you read here. they have all been planted by the film company. this is one of the most tired clichéd remakes ever made!!!!!!!!!!!! avoid at all costs. a complete waste!!! watch the original please! the is remake even wastes acting talent. these girls are given nothing to do. the murders are crap. a falling icicle kills one person. excuse me but what is this final destination 35??? the back story is plain stupid. the ending is ridiculous. i really hope this movie bombs because it really deserves to. all that gore is for nothing when you have absolutely zero suspense. one of the worst movies i have ever seen.

Scooby Doo has more compelling believable story lines

[lee-wilson · 1/10 · 8 February 2007]

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.

Wow. Are you kidding me??

[HoRRoR_luvaR · 5/10 · 22 January 2007]

Wow. Not worth the 7 dollars I paid to watch.

I walked into the theater, and wow! December 26, and nobody there except for me. I sat down and started watching the previews. That's when the people started arriving.

Can you believe that a mother went into the theaters with her (seemed to be) 3 year-old? I thought to myself, "If this kid starts crying in the middle of the movie I have been waiting so long to see, I am going to go crazy." But by the first 25 minutes of the movie, I was the one who was about to cry.

I love most actresses who performed in this movie. But they seemed one of those unknown actresses who are hyper to be acting in a movie exhibited all over the country. They were just plain dumb.

The killers, wow! Glen Morgan tried to create such a fascinating, and disturbing back-story for Agnes and Billy, that made me want to leave the theater at the scene when his mom has sex with him, and nine months later, has a child. Yet, I felt like I had to sit there, and watch the movie sink even more in this clearly-fake-snow crap.

The deaths were incredibly stupid, and the blood looked so fake (as well as the snow, if I haven't mentioned!). He tried to make this remake of a classic into another silly-just-want-money flicks such as Final Destination, which most people love. Yet, there is a slight difference of these two movies. Final Destination is made for people to have a wild laugh at how surprisingly (should I say?) smart situations the writer puts the characters in to DIE. This movie is about two demented killers, psychopaths. Go watch this movie if you want to see most deaths off-screen (Ha?), and girls getting killed by icicles, umbrellas, ice skates, Christmas trees, blah blah...

And what was up with Billy's sudden obsession with the eyes? Jesus! I love scary movies, but this one looked like a comedy without any funny moments, except for the quote "Excuse me, But I love your coat!" at a moment where... ah, I'll let you watch the movie.

The movie is rated R strong horror violence and gore, sexuality, nudity and language. This should be a PG-13 child flick! Go watch the Bob Clark directed classic from 1975. You'll be much better off with that.

A Flawed but very underrated flicks.

[horvathbe · 7/10 · 22 July 2020]

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.

Colorful and Silly Christmas Slasher

[juliamacon · 4/10 · 12 December 2019]

If Black Christmas gets anything right, it's the colorful Christmas inspired lighting and photography. It's hard not to feel a little festive as the camera moves in and around the hallways of this sorority house covered with all sorts of colored lights as jaunty Christmas music plays in the distant background. It's only a shame this well crafted atmosphere isn't in service of a better movie.

Black Christmas is a remake of the 1974 film of the same name that involves a psychotic killer sneaking into the attic of a sorority house over Christmas break and tormenting the inhabitants with obscene and terrifying phone calls before killing them one by one. This is, more or less, the same set up for this film except, where the original featured a cast of interesting and well developed (certainly by slasher standards) characters, this film features an attractive group of young women who mostly look so much alike that you can't remember who's dead and who's not.

The killer, Billy, is unwisely brought out of the shadows and given a full sob story about an abusive mother who loved his sister more than she loved him, which caused him to go on a homicidal rampage many years prior. For some reason, he has a thing for plastic bags and ripping eyes out so, if you're into that, you're in luck - that's how he dispatches of pretty much every character in the film except for one death where a stray shard of ice does the dirty work for him.

It's hard to figure out what the creators of this film had in mind. It's long been rumored to have had serious studio interference, but the tone is all over the place. Is this supposed to be quite so campy? In the end, it doesn't work as a slice of slasher cheese, a full blown comedy, or a serious horror film.

So it's not the original...but there's plenty of fun to be had here!

[NateF88 · 7/10 · 5 January 2007]

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.

The most mind numbingly retarded movie I've ever seen...

[theshadow908 · 1/10 · 5 January 2007]

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

After the 2019 "Black Christmas", I appreciate this version.

[jess-gonz20 · 10/10 · 14 December 2019]

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!

enjoy, but don't take seriously!

[kevin_crighton · 7/10 · 18 December 2006]

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.

Another awful remake

[azgolfguy · 2/10 · 29 January 2007]

Well, call me old school, but to say that this movie was as good or better than the original is confounding and appalling. Scanning some of the comments, I find it interesting that some folks downgrade the original 1974 version because it leaves loose ends, and the new one explains things. I will say that the remake does provide a back story on the killer lacking in the original, but that doesn't make it any better. Quite the contrary. Another slash and gore bore.

The subtle atmospheric dread and suspense BC 1974 in the old version, while not great, is vastly superior. It is hard to improve on one of the best of the genre, and the original Black Christmas certainly belongs near the top. It did influence Halloween, When A Stranger Calls, Friday the 13th I and other classics of a few years later and is as good or better than all of them.

The 2006 version belongs near the back of the rental area at your local DVD store. Watch it on cable some night, but for those who have seen neither, ignore the new version and find a copy of the old one to buy or rent. You'll be better served for your DVD dollar.

A final editorial comment: I have yet to see a 200X horror film remake that came close to the original in spite of all the FX technology.....e.g. The Haunting. No, the Thirteen Ghosts remake was better, but only because the old Castle version was so cheap and campy. One man's opinion is that the Black Christmas remake would have been better not made. Final Destination I (at least) was quite unusual and quality in this genre.

Violence and Gore

[Michael_Elliott · 26 February 2008]

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.

Yet another VERY disappointing "Re-make"

[alanmora · 5/10 · 5 May 2007]

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 insults original

[Butterfly0516 · 1/10 · 17 December 2006]

okay so if you haven't seen the original 'Black Christmas' made in 1974, which is also one of the greatest and cleverest horror films of all time, then please go rent it and watch it before u lay your eyes on this obviously disgustingly horrible remake. I'm sorry to the makers of this film if I offended you but come on! The original Black Christmas was awesome! Till this day it stands as one of my favourite horror films and always will be, it's funny, it's realistic and scares the bejeezes outta ya! k now to list some things here that really bothered me bout this movie and I'm sure if u see it it'll bother u too: k for one the main character Cassidy whatever is the biggest fake and certainly insults Jessica Bradford's amazing performance in the original. She was real as could be, was believable and totally kicked ass in the conclusion. All this Kassidy girl does is strut around looking like she's got a stick up her butt the whole time, I mean come on it's Christmas..Smile, and other than that the only way she got this job is due to another cruddy remake 'When a stranger calls' in which we actually get to see her get it from the stalker guy. I mean jeez. k number two all character's act the same, talk the same, wear the same clothes I mean for the longest time I felt like I was on a Covergirl commercial. Stand still, look pretty and don't forget to scream when that dude comes after u OK. OK. The characters that I felt did the best job out of em all was Michelle Trachtenberg and Lacey Chabert who have both done amazing works previously before this one went rotten. In the original the eye peeking through the door scene is a classic screamer I mean when I first saw the original it scared me so much, I mean every time I look at a door now I think of it, but anyways in the remake it is way overused! I mean the point of the eye in the original was that u were'nt expecting it, it was brilliant and scary as hell. In the remake it's like okay we're gonna being seeing the eye again for the fifth time. The thing that really made Black Christmas what it was and earned it's name as a classic was that u never fully saw or knew who or what this guy was OR what he looked like, I mean was he deformed? who knows and u know whats good bout that I still donno, and that keeps tha creepiness. In the remake u know where this guy lives, what the heck he looks like, what he does, how he lived in the attic and ate his mom I mean thats just sickening! yea he makes cookies out of his mom's skin. The killer is not supposed to be cannabilistic for goodness sakes! and another thing there is two killers! yea two. In the original too the whole time this guy is killing people nobody knows about it until the creepy conclusion when there is only one person left, in the remake they all find out and team up and are all like "okay girls we gotta stick together", I think if i knew the whole time that there was some sick guy in the house, I would get out and call the police from a house far away. The last thing in the remake that really bothered me was the original "get out of the house, the call is coming from inside the house"(which has been ripped off quite a few times from the original in previous movies, not mentioning), it worked in the original because we didn't have complicated technology back then as we do today, we have a little thing called cellphones and star six nine, if a creepy guy is calling your phone and ur getting all flustered today *69 em. Anyways I'm done. but believe me see the original it is one of the greatest horror films you will ever see if ur a horror fan like me, don't waste ur time on this one.

1 outta 10

By slasher standards, this was pretty average and forgettable

[christian123 · 4/10 · 16 January 2007]

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

Have Yourself A Very Merry Black Christmas

[meganmarie-19902 · 7/10 · 26 November 2018]

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.

Another Predictable Collection of Clichés

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 6 April 2008]

In the 70's, the boy Billy is born with yellow skin due to a lever disease and his dysfunctional mother rejects him. Later he witnesses his mother and her lover killing his beloved father and burying him in the basement of their house, and he is locked in the attic alone along his childhood. When he is a teenager, he is sexually abused by his mother and she has a baby girl called Agnes. During Christmas, the deranged Billy escapes from his imprisonment, kills his mother and stepfather and blinds one eye of Agnes. He is declared insane and his sister is sent to an orphanage. In the present days, Billy escapes from the Clark Sanatorium to spend Christmas with his family. Meanwhile, his former house is the Delta Alpha Kappa sorority house in the campus of the Clement University, and the housemother (Andrea Martin) and the sisters Kelli Presley (Katie Cassidy), Dana (Lacey Chabert), Lauren Hannon (Crystal Lowe), Megan (Jessica Harmon), Heather (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Megan Helms (Jessica Harmon), Melissa (Michelle Trachtenberg) and Eve Agnew (Kathleen Kole) are preparing the house for Christmas party in a stormy night while Clair Crosby (Leela Savasta) is in her room writing a card to bury the hatchet with her sister. When three sisters vanish, the others receive weird phone calls and believe something is wrong, but they find that they are trapped in the location.

"Black Christmas" is another forgettable slasher with a collection of clichés. The attitudes and lines of the characters are always stupid and senseless, splitting the group of survivors to be slaughtered in the next scene. The viewer has the sensation of déjà vu, not because it is a remake of a 1974 movie, but due to the lack of originality and predictability of the story. However, the cinematography and the set decoration give a great atmosphere with the contrast of the colorful Christmas decoration and lightning and the deaths and the sinister attic where Billy lived. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Black Christmas (2007)

[Mister_Gordon_Shumway · 7/10 · 3 December 2007]

It's going to be a black Christmas at the Alpha Kappa Gamma sorority house, where a group of young women have been snowed in for the holidays ... for a crazed killer is having his Christmas dinner a few miles distant in the local mental institution ...

~ Years before, Billy Lenz was born with a liver disorder rendering his skin yellow. Loved by his father, hated by his mother, Billy is locked in the attic for most of his childhood. After being told by his mother that the Russians have shot down and killed Santa Claus, Billy witnesses her kill his father following a drunken argument. Billy is later seduced by his mother in the attic and a new baby comes along, a girl named Agnes ...

Billy becomes jealous of Agnes over time and one day pulls out one of her eyes, stabs his stepfather, and beats his mother to death with a rolling pin. His is quite rightly condemned insane and sentenced to the mental institution, after being found by the police eating human-mince pies. Agnes is sent to an orphanage ...

Hopefully you're still with me at this point ...

Back in 2006 the girls are still trapped in the sorority house and Billy is on the loose once more ... one-by-one they are picked off, their eyes missing like carrion left in the desert ... outside the blizzard rages and it's hours before help can arrive ~ I enjoyed this Yuletide Slasher Film, perhaps because it was set over Christmas. Like Halloween, there's something cool and mysterious about this holiday, even after one grows-up. It was certainly one of the better horror re-makes I've seen of late - the original was filmed in 1974 - though it may not pander to all tastes, especially those of a Christian orthodox. Although the plot isn't exactly original, the film is watchable throughout and there is a neat little twist at the end. The killing is extreme and graphic at times, and there are plenty of scenes that will keep you on the edge of your seat, even make you jump! The production design and picture quality are very good - this film doesn't have a low budget feel to it - and the acting is good all round. In a nutshell you need to take the content - in-breeding, serial killing, psychologically disturbed behaviour - with a pinch of salt, like you would if you were watching an episode from Tales from the Crypt. Take this film too seriously and you too could be spending Christmas in the nut house ...

Wrap up warm and grab a sherry and mince pie, 'cause you're gonna have a very bloody Christmas with this slasher flick! Contains scenes of violence and gore, sex and nudity, and strong language.

Matthew J Lee-Williams, Review.

I feel like I lost a bet or something.

[ryanmkincaid · 1/10 · 9 April 2007]

This only gets 1 star because IMDb doesn't have a 0 star category. Horrible doesn't begin to describe this crap. I don't want to hate on anyone in Hollywood, that's too easy an escape but I want to point out some of the typical flaws with these type of movies and ask the screen writer, "Why fall for the same problems as typical horror movies do?" Case in point; after getting obscene phone calls and the house loses power while every other house on the block remains lit, and a character suddenly vanishes, why would you go under the house by yourself to turn the power back on?" Another silly scenario; "What kind of reject from the CSI academy doesn't realize that both murderers are STILL alive after zipping them up in body bags?" Just these two big problems alone are just examples of stupidity run a muck. I'm sorry but after loving the first Final Destination and enjoying the third one, I can't fathom how this thing could have been seen as anything but a cheap rip off of a much better original.

Sad to say the least.

Twisted, Interesting & Bloody!

[PhillZilly · 8/10 · 11 January 2007]

Let me start by saying when I went to see this film yesterday I actually really did think that it would suck, Prob. because of all the bashers out there who are like "worst movie ever" and my favorite "boring as all hell, and not even remotely a good slasher flick!" well I'm here to tell you that they are all WRONG! First of all, you don't go into this film thinking it will be the best horror film ever with great acting! and you can't do nothing but compare it to the original because then you will most surely hate it! you just don't do it why?!? because it's a remake with a lot of different elements and it's a slasher film! you go into it expecting blood, gore & guts and that's what I got and I was impressed.

And with a bonus it actually gave us a decent storyline that made the film more interesting as it went on, the twisted tale of Billy, Agnes & there mother was great as it added more interest into the film that just the blood & gore would have done... I'll admit I was confused as to why there were 2 killers but then as it went on I understood what was going on and again I was impressed with the way they pulled everything off! A twisted tale of what was thought to be Brother & Sister turned out to be the twisted tale of Father & Daughter! The kill's were nice as well easily at least 15 if not more kill's which is always a bonus in any slasher film. There was one kill in particular that I really enjoyed the most, when Billy killed his mother by beating her numerous times with the dough roller and using a cookie cutter to make human flesh cookies that part I ate right up as I thought it was something new and innovative! In closing, my only problems with his film is that I think they should have left Billy alive! because Agnes your not really sure about whether or not she dies or lives a sequel with Billy & Agnes would have great! my last problem was that some of the thing's shown in the trailer were not actually shown in the film itself two thing's that I noticed in the trailer were not in the film (the part were Billy is on the roof of the ceiling and he turn's around freakishly waiting for the girl wasn't in, and the part were a girl is getting dragged to these spinning blades wasn't in as well) so I was kinda disappointed in that but hey! there's always the DVD! hopefully it will get a unrated cut which I would surely purchase.

Overall if your a horror/slasher fan then I would def. recommend going to see Black Christmas! my overall rating is a 8/10.

A slashing Christmas scream fest.

[michaelRokeefe · 7/10 · 4 April 2007]

Glen Morgan writes and directs this remake of the 1974 shocker. Billy Lenz(Robert Mann)had a traumatic Christmas that led to his placement in a prison for the criminally insane. About 15 years ago, Billy killed his family and his mother's boyfriend. Encarcerated, every year Billy claims he is going home for Christmas. This Christmas, guess what? His childhood home, site of his horrific murders, is now a sorority house. The holiday usually clears out the house, but this Christmas there is a half dozen girls and their house mother left to celebrate and exchange presents. Outside the is snow falling; and inside mysterious, threatening, obscene and intimidating phone calls begin. Calls from the cell phones of girls that are now missing from the house. Billy intends to expand the family; and you know what he likes to do to his family. Other cast members: Michelle Trachenberg, Lacey Chabert, Elizabeth Winstead, Katie Cassidy, Oliver Hudson and Andrea Martin.

What did I do to deserve THIS Christmas present?

[Nightman85 · 3/10 · 25 December 2006]

Sorority girls are terrorized on Christmas Eve by the psychotic murderer that once lived in their house.

Black Christmas 2006 isn't anything like the classic 1974 original. This remake ignores practically everything about the original film and instead just becomes a routine, bloody slasher flick. There's little surprise in this slasher outing, you've got all the clichés on display – a group of girls with attitudes, some background on a killer with a bad home life, lots of false scares, and plenty of gory over-the-top killings. It's all pretty tasteless and uninspiring. The lame dialog, stereotyped characters, and sub-par cast definitely don't help matters either. Not even the presence of Andrea Martin, of the original film, lends much credibility to this turgid remake.

For those seeking a brainless slasher-fest I suppose this remake would be adequate enough, though it's definitely not to be taken seriously by any means. As a remake though, it's pretty much a foul insult to the classic original.

* 1/2 out of ****