What's there not to like?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2
Millsy78 — 16 years ago(May 22, 2009 12:35 AM)
This film is really not much worse than any other 80's movie of this genre. It has tits, ridiculous death scenes and stupid dialect. It has guys in cardigans with dodgy barnets. Seriously what's there not to like? (And don't say bad acting because that is a plus point in my eyes.)
-
Millsy78 — 16 years ago(May 27, 2009 02:00 PM)
You could give that critique for most horrors released around this time including the likes of Halloween, Friday the 13th and (Dare I say it) the Evil Dead series which look dated and, to be frank, are a little challenging to watch these days.
At least you can laugh at the terrible acting and beep in this and also Troll 2. Therefore, I maintain there is a certain level of entertainment to be derived from Silent Night Deadly Night 2 even if it is unintentional. -
Necrotard — 15 years ago(July 27, 2010 06:41 PM)
I do enjoy the new footage that's there. It's cheesy 80's fun.
The only serious problem I have is the excessive use of footage from the original movie. But I read on Wikipedia that it was the studio's fault. The studio actually wanted the filmmakers to re-edit the first movie and pass it off as a sequel. They did what they could with the money they were given to add some new footage, so I give them props for going out of their way to do that much. But thanks to the studio, the final product is still a very cheap sequel.
Remember that time I ate your family? -
crakker_jakk — 15 years ago(August 30, 2010 06:28 PM)
i agree.. the movie is campy (in a 'so awesomely bad it's good' kinda way), but the problem is the entire first half just basically replays part 1.. don't get me wrong - part 1 was actually entertaining too (again, for being so awkwardly bad that it was good), but for the sequel to just replay the entire first film for 40 minutes was just pointless and unnecessary..
-
shred-com — 13 years ago(April 24, 2012 01:24 AM)
Honestly I'd rather this have been a ultra short film then have all the footage from the first be replayed.
Or they could have rereleased the first as Silent Night Deadly Night 1.5 and have the footage of the 2nd continue where the first was supposed to end. -
HenryCW — 13 years ago(January 10, 2013 01:44 PM)
This is just a sorry excuse of a movie. I find it difficult to believe how bad it really was. I have to spend the first 4o minutes watching the so-called "flashbacks" that were actually long extracts from the first film that I finished just the day before, and only the next 40 minutes contain new material. What happened next was perfectly predictable too. Anyone who had watched more than a few horror movies before would know that the psychiatrist is dead meat, that Ricky would off a few more people, gets killed himself, and then the movie would end with the overused "the killer is not dead" kind of twist.
I read somewhere that the producers at first didn't want to make a new film, but due to the popularity of the first film, they told the director to do a RE-EDIT of the original to "improve" on it. Since that was next to impossible, instead the scriptwriter/director simply took off whole chunks of the original as flashbacks and just added a few scenes of his own. -
biglee1901 — 10 years ago(December 07, 2015 10:35 AM)
I love the music in this movie, especially the music played in these following scenes (Ricky's suicide attempt, Billy had dreams, Billy dying, Ricky's shooting rampage, Ricky breaking into Mother Superior's house and the entire chase though the house, and the movie theme itself)
When Kane made his debut in WWE in 1997, I loved his entrance theme because in some ways it sounded like the music from the Ricky's shooting rampage scene -
ElectricWarlock — 9 years ago(December 19, 2016 08:23 AM)
My only complaint is the excessive flashbacks from the original. They seemed like they were only there to lengthen the film and for no other reasons. Just a few brief clips from the original would've achieved the same purpose and gotten the point across just fine. Also, I didn't like how Mother Superior lived in a house numbered 666. I don't think she'd even set foot in a house with that number much less live in one. So that kind of bothered me though it wasn't that big of a deal.
Other than those two minor things I think the movie is kind of fun and entertaining. It gets better with each viewing.