User reviews

The delightful Mary Woronov stars as a witness to some very grisly goings-on at the gorgeous old Butler House. The house has been abandoned since the death of the family patriarch Wilfred, about 20 years ago. Now, a member of the family, Jeff (James Patterson), has returned to sell the house off. (Patterson - dying of cancer during the filming of Silent Night Bloody Night - gives a depressive, menacing and bizarre performance, which works quite well here). There is an inexplicable amount of local concern about the house, and soon, the reasons begin to reveal themselves.

Some of the acting in this film is quite poor, and there are rather immense problems with believability and plot holes galore. Nevertheless, this ambitious and complex film deserves attention for its clever storyline and affective (if annoying) low light photographic technique. There is too much voice-over, but without it, comprehending the plot might be impossible. The film is alternately engaging and tedious, largely depending on who is on screen.

All-around, for an axe-murder film, Silent Night Bloody Night is surprisingly subtle, clever and well directed. Recommended for horror fans.

I love discovering new-to-me American horror flicks of the 1970s. These independent, backwoods-shot productions usually showcase some then-startling gore effects, as well as creepy atmosphere and a sense of gritty realism usually absent from the slicker Hollywood productions. SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT fits the bill as an all-but-forgotten movie from this era, but sadly it turns out to be anything but a gem. Saying that, this early slasher flick even manages to pre-date Black Christmas by a year, and HALLOWEEN fans will find much of interest in the p.o.v. killer shots and the eerie atmosphere that highlight this unusual little movie.

The film was obviously made on the cheap, and in many places things are far too dark to see what's going on. Despite the best intentions of the filmmakers, this film's a chore to sit through. The story is slow beyond belief and the narrative stilted and mishandled; the editing of various scenes is done in such a way to make even the simplest shots confusing to the viewer. In essence, it's about a creepy old abandoned house that may be home to a murderous lunatic, plus some back story about an old asylum. The plot itself is fairly simple and uneventful, at least until the final denouement which has a classic twist of an ending. As is usual for most '70s horror flicks, there's a little gruesomeness, including a double axe murder and a broken bottle in the face, but nothing too off-putting for seasoned buffs who like their horror of the older, more classic variety. One of the most positive aspects of the film lies in director Theodore Gershuny's work – there are some genuinely inventive moments, enhanced by weird camera angles, and an excellent flashback sequence involving inmates taking over the asylum in which things get really spooky and eerie.

The story is cheaply acted by a bunch of no-name or cult stars such as Warhol favourite Mary Woronov. Guest star Patrick O'Neal doesn't hang around for long, while John Carradine doesn't say a word! Leading actor James Patterson was dying of cancer while the film was being made, adding a further level of grubbiness to the thing. SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT is a very obscure movie, and it's easy to see why; low budget, quite similar to dozens of others, and with no big names to market it. Despite these factors it works in places and provides a fair few chills during the short running time.

Terror flick containing eerie events , dark atmosphere , gory effects, and high body-count . The film is a fair murder mystery in which at an isolated location a series murderous goes around to slice up as well as hack people who are relentlessly butchered . Here takes place several grisly murders between towners and other inhabitants carried out by a strange murderer . As an escaped lunatic terrorizes a small New England town , particularly a house that was once an insane asylum . A man called Jeffrey inherits a mansion which once was a mental home . A few years later , Jeffrey (James Petterson dead at 40) finally decides to sell this grandfather's house , and a real state businessman (Patrick O'Neal) and his girlfriend (Astrid Heeren's last feature film , though she only starred three movies) arrive in the mansion to sell it , but the towns people including the Mayor (Walter Abel) have mixed feelings on keeping people away from the mansion , while a killer on loose carries out an extreme slaughter . For one night in each century , the devil controls the heavens...and earth becomes an inferno of horrors! The night earth became an inferno of horrors! . The mansion... the madness... the maniac... no escape.

Terrifying and scary horror movie in which a serial killer escapes from a mental institution causing chaos , destruction and a lot of killings . It displays a confusing plot dealing with non-sense murders and an inheritance wished by corrupt people , ambitious people , incest , and investment speculators into selling mansion . Not great , but well done terror thriller with mysterious events , some nail-biting suspense and slick scene changes . The classy plot about a criminally insane man executing a criminal spree with unexpected consequences , while scaring the people living in the region . Stars a decent cast as the early deceased James Patterson who died of cancer several months after , here playing the heir who begins to investigate some crimes happened in old times , he played along with the gorgeous Astrid Heeren and Patrick O´Neal in The Castle Keep (1969) by Sidney Pollack . And Mary Woronov who performed various cult movies for her second husband Paul Bartel and two veterans actors of long career as Walter Abel and horror myth John Carradine. There's a thorny discussion about if this Silent Night , Bloody night (1972) results to be the first slasher , while others considering Black Christmas (1974) by Bob Clark . In fact , the picture is regarded as being one of the first slasher films , being actually the first : A Bay of Blood (1971) by Mario Bava , though others as Psycho (1960) by Alfred Hitchcock , and Peeping Tom (1960) by Michael Powell had already established the seed of this popular sub-genre .

This classic terror picture was professional and strangely directed by Theodore Gershuny (1933-2007) with vivid images , though very sinister at times and abounding night , dark scenes . Theodore was married to Mary Woronov who here has a main and well played role . Theodore Gershuny was a writer and director, who wrote and directed a few films , being especially known for Tales from Darkside , Stephen King's Golden Tales (1985) , Monsters (1988) and Sugar Cookies (1973 , ) Kemek (1970). Rating : 6.5/10. Decently made and original terror movie . The motion picture will appeal to terror genre enthusiasts.

Low-budget horror almost seems too kind a way to describe this movie which sometimes seems like it was shot with someone's home movie camera! Still, the film has a certain flair and an ambitious (overly-ambitious) story that gives it enough quality to remain memorable. The story revolves around a house that has lain abandoned for many years. In a fairly creepy prologue, the owner is shown running from the house in flames, screaming till his death. Cut to present day where slick realtor O'Neal and his sexy lover Heeren come to town to finalize the sale of the house to the town elders. The buyers are a dour, somewhat disturbing bunch who add to the creepiness of the opening scenes. Oh...and also there's an escaped mental patient on the loose who is killing his way back to town! Coinciding with all this is a visit from Patterson, the grandson of the home's original owner. He carries on a tenuous encounter with Woronov, the mayor's daughter. If the plot sounds confusing and convoluted, it is. But it's all finally explained in the finale which includes a truly horrific flashback to the days when the house was occupied. This sepia-toned memory is filled with scary-looking people (some of them Warhol groupies) who are filmed in a way that blurs their features and resembles the earliest camera work ever done. This is an unsettling effect that lifts the film above many other paper thin shockers. The acting is surprisingly good throughout, with several of the actors having had Broadway experience (Patterson was a Tony winner!) Though the story isn't always easy to follow and it's edited with a chainsaw, a certain level of uneasiness comes through. Aiding this quite a bit is a truly mundane, yet terrifying voice that's heard many times over the telephone. The film makers definitely tried to make an arresting picture. The opening credits are professionally done, the music is disturbing and the actors (some of them well known---Abel played D'Artagnon!!) do their best. There's even a pretty shocking twist about one third of the way in. Only the bare bones production values keep the movie from reaching a level of quality. Still, the dank lighting and blurry location work help add to the overall frightening tone. Woronov plays one of her most "normal" roles. For some reason, this film slammed the lid on Heeren's career. While she is no Meryl Streep, she was decorative and had a bright presence. Christmas has little to do with the plot. The film steals from some earlier shockers, yet was also stolen from itself in later flicks.

This movie had to have had a very miniscule budget, because it looks very poor. Everything in this one looks very shoddy, it doesn't help that the company that put this one on dvd looks like they got a copy of this movie on vhs back when tapes first came out and just transferred it to dvd without making any improvements, or cleaning it up. The story could have been interesting, but it really falls apart in the end with a very long flashback scene that is very poorly done. The end also is kind of confusing as I was wondering about this and that. You will know who committed the murders, but you won't know a couple of the other details. On the plus side this one moves very fast and is relatively short. John Carradine is in this one, in a rather small role. For some reason he doesn't talk and only rings a bell or writes on a pad to tell people stuff. This is a waste as Carradine has a very distinguished voice. The Christmas decorations here and there don't look very good either, as they look like they were just draped here and there without much thought as to where they would go. All in all, I won't say stay away from this one, just don't expect too much.

With a relatively intriguing plot and a set design that is quite good, this starts off as quite satisfying viewing, but as it progresses, the story becomes less original and interesting, and from there, the film starts to turn sour, as all it has to fall back on is quite poor production values. The camera-work is often jerky and clumsy, the post-production sound recording is not very good, and the voice-over used adds little to the tale. It does have some good points though, such as a few well composed shots, and appropriate colour choices for lighting. However, with so-so acting too, and not really a great plot behind it, the negatives of this film unfortunately outweigh the good aspects.

"Silent Night, Bloody Night" is a frustrating film. It manages to set a great mood--chilling and brutal. Yet, it then seems to lose so much momentum late in the film--and left me feeling totally uninterested.

When the film begins, you learn that a rich guy died 20 years ago under mysterious circumstances. In the meantime, his home has sat abandoned until recently when his son declares that he's going to sell the place. Soon after his attorney arrives in town to finalize the deal, folks start getting hacked to pieces (the first few are amazingly realistic). All this worked well. However, to explain who it was and how it was, the film had a HUGE and awkward flashback sequence that seemed to take up the last third of the movie!! Surely all this could have been done in a much more straight forward and less sloppy manner. And, as a result the film left me wondering if perhaps a re-write might have resulted in this becoming a much more popular and worthy movie. As it is, I'd only recommend it to die-hard horror fans or folks wanting to see a young Mary Waronov in a major role.

One of the first Christmas horror films ever made and the first slasher film set in Christmas. "Silent Night, Bloody Night" is creepy as hell, with a cheap but effective cinematography, amazing film locations, good acting and a wonderful music score. The script is thrilling and full of mistery, some twits and great death scenes. A low budget film that gave me thrills, a great classic!

A casual viewing of this old cult favorite will not explain what's going on. The characters are frequently called by other names, and the unseen (until the last scene) insane killer calls himself Marianne. There are so many characters related to each other and so many people involved in the tragedy that it's hard to keep up with who-did-what and why. Jeffrey is a red herring, and we never know for sure if he is who he says he is, even though Diane checks his ID (which is a California drivers license). John Carradine is wasted as a mute who only rings a bell, grunts and writes on a pad to communicate. Mary Woronov is very likable, as is Astrid Heeren, but one I would have liked to see more of was a reluctant telephone operator played by Lisa Richards. In fact, in order to vaguely understand what I had seen, I had to reread all the information here. I am still not impressed with the result, which could have been so much better.

Having owned but never watched the Paragon VHS cassette for years, I surprised myself by watching this holiday horror film on this cold, gray winter day. Even more surprising is that hiding behind the generic title of SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT is an atmospheric horror thriller with a great twist. And not only is SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT a great horror film, but it is one that has been duped by the historians of horror cinema.

The biggest asset to SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT is the film's set-up. It packs a big punch in the end and actually left me guessing throughout the film. A few of the red herrings are a bit too obvious but they worked well enough. One of Gershuny's biggest strengths is the subtle number of hints regarding the film's big twist in the finale. If one pays close attention, there are several tip-offs as to what is really going on in the odd town of East Willard. It is refreshing to see a film where you are continually assessing the information as the mystery unfolds.

Director Gershuny, probably best known for SUGAR COOKIES (1973), knows how to build an atmospheric horror film. The wintry locations, especially the imposing house, are used to full effect and he gets great performances (particularly from Woronov) from his leads. The picture's highlight is a extended flashback, chronicling what happened at the estate in the 1930s. The sepia look and use of wide-angle lens makes the entire scene very creepy. One complaint that pops up in reviews I have seen is the dark night shots. Truthfully, I think this has more to do with bad transfers rather than poor craftsmanship. Gershuny also uses an effective POV for the killer that echoes Bob Clark's Yuletide themed BLACK Christmas (1974) from a few years later.

A lot of people credit Clark's film as the earliest prototype of the slasher genre. But Gershuny's film predates Clark's by almost 2 years. According to various reports it was shelved for two years. This fact is further substantiated by the fact that lead Patterson actually passed away in August of 1972. So the film was completed well before the early 1974 filming date for Clark's film. Given the killer POV shots, scary phone calls the killer makes and high number of murders; one has to wonder if Clark saw this film before making his own. This is not to diminish the power of BLACK Christmas (it is still an excellent film), but just to question the general belief that BLACK Christmas begat HALLOWEEN and the subsequent North American slasher genre. As it stands, SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT is a great Christmas horror film, a more than pleasant surprise for this holiday season.

I had seen it once before but I forgot. Because it's too good? No, I don't think so, if it was a masterpiece, I would have remembered. Seeing it again, I began to remember scene after scene, what's happening next and the whole action. I think it was the case of actors hungry, you know, when a decent actor accept a bad script for money. It was for sure the case with Patrick O'Neal, I've seen him also in some good films. Mary Woronov has the best role in the entire cast and, I think, not because she was the director's wife, Theodore Gershuny, but because she's really good. But even so, the film is a failure, it's very weak, from all points of view, story, acting, cinematography, direction, everything. Recommended only for those who have time to waste.

Really bizarre film that has some sepia film flashbacks-in-time which truly makes the footage look like it was filmed in 1910. The acting is so-so and the first half of the movie is kind of slow-paced. I wish there were still some good clean copies of the film, the DVD versions that are out are somewhat murky and it distracts from the viewing at times. All in all, a weird film that should be viewed at least once.

Not to be confused with the eighties slasher flick 'Silent Night, Deadly Night'; this British chiller is best left forgotten entirely. British cinema produced some great horror films in the seventies (The Wicker Man, Twins of Evil etc) - but it also produced a lot of rubbish. Incense for the Damned, Satan's Slave and Tower of Evil to name a handful are some of the worst films I've ever suffered, and while it pains me to say it; I'm going to have to add this film to that list also. It's a shame that this is a load of rubbish, as the story could easily have afforded a much better film; and some change! I love low budget flicks generally; but hate it when the budget constraints get in the way, and this is what's happened here. Director Theodore Gershuny obviously has flair; that is evident throughout the movie, but the fact he has to constantly resort to voice-overs and scenes that don't make sense lets the film down massively. The plot isn't very well worked, and follows a man who inherits his father's house. The house used to be a mental home, however, and soon we discover what we went on behind those walls. Well, sort of.

The film starts of very slowly; and it's about half an hour before anything happens; when the film explodes with a brutal axe slaying! If the film could have carried on this pace for the rest of the duration, I would have had no qualms with forgetting about how bored I was during the first half hour; but alas, it simply goes back to tedium. The way that the flashbacks are shown in sepia is good, as aside from letting the audience know that the events happened a long time ago, it also gives the scenes more of a horror feel. The score is good also, with a plethora of creepy sounds supporting a brilliant rendition of 'Silent Night, Holy Night'. However, none of this stuff counts in a film as messy as this one. The plot is hard to follow, with many scenes being inaudible; and the picture gets so murky at times that you might as well be watching this film with your eyes closed. I saw this film on DVD, and have seen films from the twenties being scrubbed up better. I would only recommend this film to people that want to see how much of a hindrance low budget can be. There's not much else to see this for.

I remember this one showing up on late night t.v. around the holidays and it always played on Elvira's Movie Macabre. ( New Year's Evil was another one that Elvira would show ).

As an earlier reviewer said, this one did predate the Holiday themed slasher films of the late 70's - early 80's but it also had the killer-phoning-from-inside-the-house gig way before Black Christmas and When a Stranger Calls.

Filmed in 1970, Silent Night, Bloody Night is a very moody little film with great music and is actually bouyed by it's low budget.(The sepia tones of some of the scenes recalls 1927's Cat and the Canary). It really is an underrated little terror flick and it does deserve to be cared about and given a good remastering (If a good print even exists). Anchor Bay..Image..Are ya listening???

I still play my muddy old Paragon video version and plan to get the new DVD release of the film. Cannon released the film circa 1972/1973 under different titles such as Death House and Night of Vengeance (a title that was also slapped on a re-release of Last house on the Left) but I've always dug it's original title of Night of the Dark Full Moon.

Even the characters seem to be clueless as to the plot (or better said no plot of this movie(?). There is absolutely no character development. No history on any of them. You are challenged to even catch the name of the characters. Most scenes in this movie are short and stilted. The contant switching between scenes gives you whiplash. Most the the movie occurs at night making it more difficult to see the characters faces and even the actions they are taking. The acting is mostly wooden, without emotion. The dialogue is also very abrupt and clipped. Scene after scene is chopped of at the end with no explanation of what has happened.

"Night of the Dark Full Moon" is also known as "Silent Night, Bloody Night" and it's surprisingly a pretty darn good horror film. This one I had my expectations of the film set very low so the film took me by surprise just how interesting it is. It's a low budget film but quite effectively filmed with a story that kept my interest.

This one is a bit bloody - it's a prelude to the slew of slasher films that came about in the late 1970s through the 1980s. This film is not one that is a simple hack-them-up teenage movie without a solid story. This film has a solid story that is quite good with some bloody scenes - it's more story than blood and gore.

I will have to add this film to my list of "spooky holiday films" to watch during the winter season.

7/10

It's a reflection of one's generosity to say this movie struggles with inauthenticity, for this is a dire understatement. I think the chief filming location is swell, and I do enjoy Gershon Kingsley's score that works to build tension and atmosphere. These are the only elements to inspire praise, however, and otherwise 'Silent night, bloody night' is a slog. It suffers from lethargic pacing, and I assume out of kindness that it's by director Theodore Gershuny's guiding hand that the entire cast turns in performances that are equally somnolent. One rather wonders if everyone showed up to set stoned every day, and so carelessly indifferent and unconvincing is the delivery across the board that it's hard not to wonder if the audio for the film was for some reason dubbed over in post-production.

Those descriptors are quite essential, in fact - indifferent, unconvincing, lethargic; see also: dispassionate, dull, weak, sloppy, ill-considered, unexciting, and so on. These same words consistently apply to pretty much every aspect of the picture - camerawork, direction, dialogue, characters, scene writing, plot, sound design, lighting, editing, and more. The entire experience is a rough one, from the peculiar voiceovers that launch the feature and remain prevalent, to the apparent disinterest of all involved (especially those in front of the camera), to the specious, disjointed narrative. 'Silent night, bloody night' is so distinctly ungenuine that one is reminded of the ham-handed genre romps of the 1950s, if not also the bare-faced low-grade pablum of searingly tawdry production values that have proliferated in recent years. This feature accordingly had a modest but decent budget, but in no way does it meaningfully seem to make use of its resources; if I didn't know any better, I may have guessed this were a poor attempt at a parody of slashers.

I began watching with no expectations, and am utterly confounded by how rotten this turned out to be. Only within the last 10-15 minutes are we presented with any real substance, and by then it's far too little, much too late. Our "reward" for sitting through well over one hour of sleepy, recklessly written, thoughtlessly rendered tedium is highly questionable as it is, and simply not worth it. Through all these 85 minutes I was bored, and struggled to stay awake, and was so put off by what I had committed to watching as to spark anger. To continue to write about this movie would mean repeating myself and going in circles: 'Silent night, bloody night' is bland, lackluster, unsatisfying, unrewarding, vapid, humdrum, flavorless, hackneyed, tiresome drivel. What marginal value it may possess in passing is not remotely worth the time it takes to watch: This is awful, and undeserving of anyone's attention.

First, though, you need to know what I mean by "magnificent." I LOVE movies that appear "dark" and "low budget" because it gives them a eerie dimension not seen in 21st century attempts at horror. Growing up during the early '70's, I am, too, a bit wistful for these days long gone, so, I appreciate the marked quality difference in these films because that's how the past is...somewhat dark and "fuzzy." Darkness and less-than-perfect-images are very appropriate for a horror film.

Silent Night, Bloody Night is a magnificent, appropriate name for this movie, but the title has little to remind the viewer what time of the year it is. We ARE told, though, that Wilfred Butler died on Christmas Eve 1950, and the horrible events that unfold twenty years later occur during the Yuletide season. Aside from the mayor whistling Silent Night and his lovely daughter wrapping a gift in black and white, diamond-designed early '70's "mod" paper, there is little else seasonal about this film.

Patrick O'Neal plays lawyer/real estate agent Jack Carter who comes to town to sell the beautiful, old home of Wilfred Butler, who has not been seen by his neighbors in years. The house, however, has been kept in immaculate repair by his caretaker, and there is much speculation why his grandson, Jeffrey, would sell it for a mere $50,000. When word spreads through the communtiy that the mansion is to be sold, the message reaches an insane asylum nearby,prompting an inmate's escape and a night of terror. But be prepared for twists and turns and a mystery; this is no modern-day mindless thrasher-slasher.

The parts are played very well. The plot is good. Wilfred Butler was eccentric, and in the film's final segment you will come to understand that this is an understatement. Silent Night, Bloody Night is scary and it transports you to that "other Earth" where horror occurs to people in and around big old houses. And, most important for this viewer, it takes you back to how we once were...and how a lot of films really looked in those days!

It's not perfect, but this movie has a lot going for it. Some very creepy imagery and sound work throughout, and it functions well as both a horror film and a mystery. The first axe murder is incredibly well done, much better than today's fancy special effects. Great characters, too, and solid acting throughout.

As mentioned by many other commentors, the best part of the film is the extended flashback scene near the end of the movie. This is one of the creepier scenes I've seen in a horror film, and I've seen quite a few. Did anyone else notice that this section of the film appears to have heavily influenced The Ring? Particularly the shots where it goes to a jumpy dissolve to the wallpapered room with the traumatized little girl? Even the theme has some similiarities.

I won't bother to say anything about the production values, except to say that the insufficient lighting never bothered me - it seemed to add to the atmosphere.

Only two real flaws - one, the opening and closing scenes with Mary Woronov really bleed tension out of the whole business, and could have been left out completely; they don't add anything to the film. The other is that it's pretty hard to swallow the conceit that the escaped lunatics were able to take over all of the town's positions of power (i.e. mayor, police chief, etc.), let alone that nobody else in the town seemed to be the wiser. In the end, though, who cares? This is a stylish and imaginative horror (as opposed to "slasher") film that has had lasting influence on the genre.

DVD note - I got this in a "4-pack" compilation of older horror movies (!for $5) called "Horror Classics" put out by Platinum. Great deal if you're into the older horror movies, although the contents of the disc can vary from what's advertised on the cover.

I must say I'm a sucker for before-1980, so-badly-made-they-hurt movies! They're always fun to watch and sometimes to mock at! I think what makes them so funny is the fact that, although the direction is ambitious, there is insufficient equipment to carry out the director's ideas.

Silent Night, Bloody Night is one of those films that take themselves too seriously. The twisted plot is very interesting and it keeps you anxious. But not everything makes sense; in fact, there are some lines that were obviously overdubbed after the completion of the film aiming to cover plot holes.

The best part in this movie is the really eerie diary scenes. Excellent direction and photography. And don't believe what other reviewers say (that the film is barely watchable due to insufficient lighting); there is only a couple of dark scenes, that's all. The murders are not fully shown because they are *meant* to be in the dark. And besides, there might have not been enough money for a second special effects scene. :-)

All in all this one's a gorey (sort of) suspenseful thriller, not an art film, but definitely a cult classic.

5