User reviews

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

4.5 out of 10

Many years ago, a mistreated boy named Billy Lenz slaughtered his family in a one-house killing spree. Not surprisingly, this had him committed to an asylum. Since then, his house has been converted into a sorority house. And this Christmas, Billy wants to be home with his family to celebrate.

Let me say a few nice things before I start venting. First, I have to say I must have been a very good boy this year because I can't recall such an attractive cast in the recent past. Three of my all-time favorite young ladies show up here: Michelle Trachtenberg ("Eurotrip"), Lacey Chabert ("Pleasure Drivers"), and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (numerous recent horror films, including "Final Destination 3"). It was quite the visual feast!

I also enjoyed the inclusion of Andrea Martin as Ms. MacHenry, the house mother. Martin was one of the college girls from the original film and I think it's important to pay some sort of tribute like this (as well as the use of "Clark Sanitarium"). She was a good pick, better than Margot Kidder.

And the use of incest and cannibalism is always a plus (both of which were absent in the original)... and the gore was decent (though not great) with the constant eye-gouging thanks to a glass unicorn. I do love unicorns, as my embroidered unicorn pillow might suggest. While I do not think it was intentional, I appreciate how the unicorn reminded me of another great classic, "The Abominable Dr. Phibes".

But let's start the ripping: Glen Morgan was probably the wrong guy to direct this. He brought along cast members from his prior films (again, such as "Final Destination 3") which was fine, but seemed to put very little thought into any of this. And his films have more of a teenager quality to them, making even the gore, incest and cannibalism seem very youth-oriented, if that makes any sense. R-Rated or not, this was meant for teens to watch. He could have really stepped it up a dozen notches.

The girls get little or no personalities. I don't think I learned half of their names and had difficulty keeping them straight. Maybe reduce the number by one or two so we could at least see them for ten minutes? On the flip side, the film focused almost entirely on Billy Lenz, providing his entire back story. The original never touched on this at all, which made him creepier and more mysterious. Here, there's nothing strange about him (besides the yellow skin and eyes, which play no importance). Obviously, Morgan never learned the secret of good horror: don't show the killer.

Furthermore, they wasted the character of the boyfriend Kyle (who was named Peter in the original). Here, he is briefly thought by the girls to be the killer, but the audience knows the whole time that he's not. In the original, you never know whether or not Peter is the killer (in fact, many people who watched all the way to the end still aren't sure). If Kyle isn't a red herring, and his only purpose is to bring up some sex tape which was not important to the story (despite being shown again and again), then what the hell was he doing in the movie at all?

Other great elements from the original were toned down: the police station scenes, the drunk girl (who now passes out right away). And a shower scene was added, but no explicit nudity, making it almost a complete waste of time.

I'll stop before I start frothing at the mouth. Because, seriously, I was let down. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this movie, but it was clearly the teen remake (not unlike the newer "When A Stranger Calls"). If you need a fix of girls getting strangled with a plastic bag and stabbed in the eye (and that's really all you'll see), check this out. Otherwise, you'll find plenty of great slashers out there on the video shelf. And, of course, you simply cannot beat the original "Black Christmas", one of the best horror films ever made.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I 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.

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.

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.

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 ****

I liked the original movie Black Christmas (1974) and how creepy and disturbing it could get without being too gory with its kills and having characters with realistic problems; what I have only heard about the 2006 remake was that there are a lot of people who do not like it, with a small few who do like it, which I did not understand. After watching, I liked Black Christmas (2006) and I liked how it expanded on what the original hints at about the killer's backstory; the movie was creepy, disturbing, it had good performances, and the cinematography was well done giving the movie the Christmas look and feel with the lights, decorations, and snow shown in many ways throughout the film.

The characters are like how the characters in the original were like, such as them having their own issues despite the obvious problem in the house, but also there is a backstory to the sorority house they live in, and the killer named Billy who used to live in it which gives you more of an idea on why he is here. The girls in the sorority house are getting weird calls that freak them out, and throughout the movie you are creeped out because you know what the characters do not know about there being someone in the house; also, I like that we are at the house, for the most part, it makes the situation even more uncomfortable when knowing you cannot leave the house or leave the area making it an enclosed space.

The killer is not shown in the movie, because it is as a build up to what he looks like once revealed, so the whole movie the main characters are telling his backstory and describing what he looks like; I like not seeing the killer till the end and getting this creepy build up. I thought the cinematography was well done with weird close ups, wide shots, camera pans, and zoom ins along with great lighting; the lighting can consist of the use of Christmas lights outside or inside the house with a nice Christmas feel and look to it. Also, the movie has more kills that are also brutal and bloody, which is impressive with the effects, but the killer also does a lot of brutal and crazy things in the movie that will creep you out or disturb you while watching.

Black Christmas (2006) might not be for everyone, and some people who like the original, but I liked both this and the original; it is hard to say if this is better, not as good, or as good as the original. The ending was a bit sudden, but other than that and some issues that involve spoilers, the movie was creepy and disturbing with great cinematography, bloody kills, and lots of brutal dark sequences. This movie might not be for everyone, but I would recommend giving it a shot for the people who have seen the original Black Christmas (1974) and for people who have not; this 2006 remake does not deserve all the hate it has gotten.