Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation

Dir: Brian Yuzna

1990

***

Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out! was the franchises first big misfire - taking the pressure off of Part 2's cheap trick of only being half a movie. The great Brian Yuzna made the wise decision of taking the story away from the original origins, although the script for this film was the first draft written for Silent Night, Deadly Night III. At this point I was over the fact that the main villain wasn't dressed as Santa, I just wanted a good story, although there is something a little disappointing that this isn't quite a Christmas horror, but only because there just aren't enough of them (of any quality anyway). There are no killer Santas here, it is Christmas because in one scene there is a tree in the background but moreover, it's just a creepy horror. Fresh on the tails of Society - and using a few ideas that were written and never used for Society, Brian Yuzna has once again teamed up with the great Screaming Mad George. There is a character called Ricky (played by Clint Howard) but it's not clear whether he is connected or is even the same Ricky from the first films but I personally didn't see him as such. It doesn't really matter, Clint Howard is awesome and that's all there is to it. Add Witches, spontaneous human combustion, huge insects, worms coming out of people and Society-esque wobbly limb business and you're left with a damn fine eerie horror, everything you could want if you're a fan of Yuzna and Mad George - which of course I am. Yunza could have put a Santa hat on Howard (or one of the giant worms) but there was never really any need. At first I wondered whether this was a terrible horror given a title from a well-known and ever so slightly infamous horror franchise but apparently that wasn't the case. It's a great little horror film that has been hijacked by the franchise. It is fair to say the acting isn't the finest and leading lady Neith Hunter seems to spend more time undressed than dressed but she carried the film pretty well. The script is pretty good, so good in fact that even when the film reaches dazzlingly ridiculous heights, it's still somehow believable. Well maybe not believable but you go along with it without questioning it as much as maybe you should and I think that's down to Yuzna, as I feel this way about most of his films. It's also quite disturbing in its content, although not too disturbing that one could feel too effected by it. It's hard to explain but it's one of those great little unique horror films from the early 90s that I love. Seriously, the only thing missing, other than a Santa Hat and axed Nun is Jeffery Combs.

Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out!

Dir: Monte Hellman

1989

**

The original Silent Night, Deadly Night is a Christmas horror classic and Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 is also a classic, but only through default because it is largely a repeat (flashback) of the first film. Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out! is a million miles away from a classic, or a horror for that matter. It's not really even about Christmas and it features absolutely no nuns or axe-wielding Santas. The film is however, a continuation of the original story. Somehow, and even though we saw him shot to pieces at the end of the last film, Ricky is still alive and kept in a high security (or is it) psychiatric hospital. In wanting to contact Ricky while he resides in a six year coma, an eccentric Doctor tries to use a young Clairvoyant girl to try and get inside his brain (which is now housed in a half head and half goldfish bowl - for no apparent reason, especially as Ricky's head was about the only place he wasn't shot at the end of the previous film). Of course, Ricky wakes up, when a Santa impersonator enters his room no less, and decides to go after the Clairvoyant girl, for no real reason either. Being half man, half goldfish bowl comes with limitations and Ricky's new slow form makes for quite a dull film. There are large parts of the film whereby absolutely nothing happens. As well as being Clairvoyant, young Laura is also blind, which means much of the film involves her not being able to the incredibly slow killer sneak up behind her. This creates no tension whatsoever, which I believe was the intention. Instead, it just looks like you're watching a low-budget horror film in slow motion - which is pretty much exactly what it is. There isn't much pay-off either. No Santa suit, no Santa hat, no axe, no Nun killing, no Christmas, nothing. When you are unworthy of a Silent Night, Deadly Night title, then you know you've reached a certain low but this was directed by Monte Hellman, director of The Shooting and Two-Lane Blacktop, a great film maker. He's even said this was his best work to date, although not his best film. He said this in regard to the films production. The script was written in one week in March and the principal photography was completed by the end of April. The film was edited in May - Hellman took time out to go to the Cannes Film Festival and the film was released in July. I guess their speed could be congratulated but I'm not sure it is a good thing overall, especially as the film looks as rushed as it was.

Santa's Boot Camp

Dir: Ken Feinberg

2016

*

After very stiff competition and some strong contenders I am happy to announce that the prize for worst Christmas film 2016 is... Ken Feinberg's Santa's Boot Camp. Clearly filmed in the middle of summer (and seemingly unconcerned with trying to hide it), Santa's Boot Camp is a misguided tale of redemption that teaches children a valuable lesson. That lesson is capitalism will always win, so make sure you're with a strong union. Basically, the Elves think Santa gets all the credit and decide to go on strike. The Elves are played by brattish children who say everything like it's an insult and spend the entire film with their arms folded. To fill in for them, Santa kidnaps a group of young stereotypes and forces them into slave-labour in order to meet his quota and of course teach them a valuable lesson - judgmental bastard that he is. After and very long hour and a half, the children somehow acknowledge the errors of their ways because they've mucked out some reindeer and have had slightly nastier children be nasty at them. I'm for escapism and a bit of fantasy but Santa's Boot Camp has all the magic and imagination of an empty cereal box. There is no festive fun to be had here. If your idea of a good time is watching annoying kids arguing with each other and being smug about being smug, then this is the film for you but if you treasure your eyes, ears and general sanity (not to mention your well-earned time off) you should probably partake in something else a little more interesting like dusting or counting your own arm hairs. The signs were there but this is a particularly bad Christmas movie and is best avoided unless you like pain and misery. Merry Christmas everyone.

This Christmas

Dir: Preston A. Whitmore II

2007

*

I disliked Preston A. Whitmore II's This Christmas for various different reasons but I think what I liked about it least was the fact that it didn't feel anything like a Christmas movie. Now this isn't always such a bad thing, however, sometimes when a 'family' film is deemed so bad by a studio or production company, it is often given a Christmas title and churned out in December. I don't think This Christmas was mean as anything other than a Christmas movie, so it's almost worst if that makes any sense at all. If it doesn't then I'm sorry, it is probably due to having my delicate brain cells subjected to one of the worst films I have ever seen. There's nothing wrong with the direction, the acting or the editing, the music is nice and overall it looks good. It is the outrageously bad script that stinks to high heaven, the fact that the characters have stereotyped themselves and that the over message of godliness is ruined by sex and violence. To tackle the biggest elephant in the room, This Christmas is a Black Christmas film. About time too but do Black viewers want to be represented this way? Christmas movies are a whitewash, it's about time everyone was represented fairly but every single racial stereotype is here on show, and it is black people who are responsible. It's unbelievable really. The men of the family are either students of the Black Panther movement, criminals, are cheating on their wives or have secret white girlfriends. One of them even pulls out a gun within the first 30 minutes. The women are bitchy, stuck up, partake in one night stands (on Christmas Eve?) and are emotionally unstable. One of the female characters drives their husband's car in LA's concrete river, spills oil on the bathroom floor to make him slip and beats him viciously with a leather belt. This is celebrated during Christmas' meal. All the while the family go to church, pray to God and do everything in the name of their beloved mother. These are terrible, terrible people. It is dreadfully frustrating when black people aren't represented enough in film and then they themselves produce this nonsense. I get that families argue during the festive season, I really, really do, but this film is one huge embarrassing exaggeration. If I was black I'd be outraged. I'm not black but I'm outraged. I guess that's Christmas films for you though, a real shame as there are some great actors in the cast and all are wasted on this poor excuse of a family festive film. 

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2

Dir: Lee Harry

1987

***

So there is a huge feeling of Déjà vu when watching Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2, not just because it shares the same themes as the first film but because it is the same film as the first one. The story follows Ricky, the younger brother of Billy the psychotic Santa killer of the first film. Ricky is interviewed by a psychologist in a maximum security facility (or is it) and the first hour of the film is flashbacks of the first film, whereby Ricky tells of Billy's crimes in detail, even though he wasn't actually there to witness any of them. Why Ricky has followed in Billy's criminal footsteps is unclear, but after watching all the highlights of the first film I was thankful that he had. The first film has some spectacular inventive death scenes and Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 does quite well at trying to match it, with only a few minutes to spare. Death by umbrella was a particular favourite death but once again, part two of the Silent Night, Deadly Night series isn't really about Santa or even about Christmas, it's about nasty Nuns, who once again find themselves at the wrong end of a killer in a Santa suit's axe. It gets silly and gory pretty fast, which is a huge relief after being forced to re-watch the first film. It's been written off by many a critic and it does go a long way in making the first film look a lot better then it actually is but for what it's worth I think the climax is well worth the wait. Compared to the next three Silent Night, Deadly Night sequels it is an utter masterpiece but I still have a soft spot for it. The acting is truly awful, the script is amazingly bad and it's only half a film but after watching, it now wouldn't be Christmas without a sneaky re-watch. At the very least, it's still firmly in the top ten best Christmas horror films of all time (but only just).

Ernest Saves Christmas

Dir: John R. Cherry III

1988

****

There are nine Ernest films in total (sadly there were six in development before the untimely death of the great Jim Varney) and Ernest Saves Christmas is easily the best - maybe alongside Ernest Goes to Camp. The Ernest films were always shown on British TV during the summer holidays and I remember watching Ernest Saves Christmas for the first time during a particularly hot August morning. It really didn't matter to me that it wasn't Christmas, that's how much I enjoyed it. The thing is, it's not really that great a film. It's not great at all but for some reason I absolutely love it. The fact that Ernest is a lovable character aside, it is a great story. Christmas film stories are very samey and there is nothing original about helping Santa but somehow Ernest Saves Christmas feels a little different. It's an 80's classic and I'm under no illusion that I'm not being washed with waves of nostalgia here but there is something a little bit special about this film that I can't quite put my finger on. I think it has a lot to do with the film playing for laughs a lot more than most and that it isn't too schmaltzy and doesn't try too hard to teach the kids an important moral lesson. It's was never seen as a classic and it never will be but give me Ernest over Will Ferrel's Elf or Tim Allen's Santa Clause any day of the week. Another highlight that makes the film stand out over many of the others is that Douglas Seale makes a brilliant Santa Claus. The story is mad-cap and original and Jim Varney is great in every scene. The Ernest films took a severe nose-dive over the following years and I've often thought it a shame that they only made one Christmas film. He could have made a new one each year and made a brilliant series around it (and made a lot of money I shouldn't wonder too). I'm in the minority but Ernest Saves Christmas is on my essential Christmas film list and has been since 1988. Surely I can't be alone on this?

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Dir: Gareth Edwards

2016

*****

I'm a nerd. I grew up on Sci-fi and like many other millions of people, Star Wars (along with Star Trek) was everything to me. Like the rest of the world, I wanted to see what happened beyond Return of the Jedi and I like everybody else, was slightly disappointed with what George Lucas gave us in the remastering and in the origin stories. We still never knew what had happened to Luke, Han and Leia though, so there was always hope. Then, in 2015 what we all thought would never happen, happened. I then wished it had never happened and began to appreciate episodes I-III, such was my disappointment. Disney bought Star Wars, their stores moved the Mickey Mouse displays to one side and soon enough you could buy all the toys and merchandise you wanted thirty years ago. When they announced that they would be making several one-off Star Wars stories' and origin tales', I thought it would be more of the same and an extension of the cash-in - fair enough given the amount of money they had spent, I was now over it, let the kids have it, I was done. Then the trailer for Rogue One came out. I noticed it had a good few of my favourite actors in it and it looked.....authentic. After now watching Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, I can confirm that if I only had one word to describe it... it would be "authentic". If I had two... it would be "very happy". If I had six they would be "I'm so happy I could cry". Gareth Edwards achieved something here that neither George Lucas or JJ Abrams could in either Star Wars: Episode III -Revenge of the Sith or The Force Awakens. He has given us something new and has brought back all of the warm nostalgia of the originals. I liked pretty much all of the new elements of The Force Awakens but I think the film stumbles when handling older subjects and characters. Revenge of he Sith gets really exciting towards the end of the film but it doesn't quite make up for the two and half films that come before it. Edwards has clearly gone back to A New Hope and has looked at every tiny detail to get it right in this film. There are many people credited with the story but it was special effects supervisor John Knoll who stood up and said the concept stories being circulated early on were not of Star Wars standards before developing his own idea. It seems that the real Star Wars fans in the industry, or at least the ones that understood what made the originals so loved, were finally given the chance to create. The attention to detail is superb. If you're a casual Star Wars viewer then you should be satisfied but if you are a Star Wars nerd you will be in heaven. The references to the other films and characters are often slight, relatively subtle but always effective. It has everything you'd expect from a Star Wars film but just that little more refined. I loved the BB-8 droid from The Force Awakens but Rouge One's K-2SO is something a little different from him, or R2D2 and C3PO. Instead of playing it easy and going for cute, they looked at what worked best within the story. The story itself isn't something new either, it already existed in a way and events take place just days before where A New Hope begins and believably so. There are some very nice surprises along the way and just when you think you've seen them all, a few new ones pop up, each fitting the story perfectly and serving a purpose, rather than simply serving as nostalgic titillation. I imagine fans of the books, animated series and video games will be rather happy too. The cast is near perfect. Felicity Jones is great in the lead role and Diego Luna supports her well in what is the main male lead. Alan Tudyk ticks many boxes in voicing the film's droid and what film isn't made better by the presence of the mighty Donnie Yen? Forest Whitaker and Mads Mikkelsen fill in the big supporting roles nicely and the brilliant Ben Mendelsohn proves once again that he is the go-to guy if you want a villain played right. It's was great to see personal favorites Riz Ahmed and Daniel Mays too, they've come a long way from Shifty and their success is well earned. Jimmy Smits and Genevieve O'Reilly were very welcome additions to the story, both bridging the gaps between episodes I-III and A New Hope perfectly. Rouge One is very much a Star Wars film without trying too hard to be so. There is no 'waterfall' introduction (this is the waterfall story in a way) and each scene isn't cut by another sweeping in from the side. This is Edwards' film, something new and something the franchise desperately needed. The film does things it's own way while staying true to the Star Wars universe, which is ultimately the Star Wars way. There was a worry that this wouldn't quite feel like a real Star Wars film but I would argue that Rouge One is the most Star Wars film since The Empire Strike Back. I loved it. Seriously, by the end, I could have cried!