Hello, Chris. Can I interrupt for a moment?
Who are you?
The Ghost of Christmas Past. Haven't you promised the 12 Reviews of Christmas before, and came up short?
Yeah, well, that was due to factors beyond my control.
And this season will be different?
Well... Um... Yeah. I hope. Hey, I've got the first one out on December, um, third. It's a start.
Well, you go for it. I'll be cheering you on. And checking up on your progress. No pressure.
Oh great. Now, where was I? Oh yeah, Black X-Mas. A remake of Bob Clark's classic written and directed by Glen Morgan, (who received Clark's blessings on the project), the film was released on December 25, 2006. And while it's definitely not the classic the original was, but it's still pretty fun if you're in the mood for some gory Christmas fun.
But the film has some problems. The script doesn't give Morgan's cast much to work with, and he commits the same issue most filmmakers who are fans of the original work make with their remakes. And finally, the Weinsteins (to no one's surprise) demanded changes from Morgan, and put out a problematic trailer.
Before heading there, let's look at the plot. While Morgan delivers a nice twist in the final act, this remake follows the original script. A bunch of sorority sisters are murdered by a killer in their house, they receive a threatening phone call, a family member shows up wondering why her sister is missing, and we even get a red herring boyfriend.
So far, you'd think such a basic plot would work in the film's favor. But, as I mentioned earlier, the script has some problems. To start, the killer, Billy, is in a high security mental facility at the start of the film, and escapes because a security guard doesn't follow proper procedures or even common sense. Look, I know characters in horror films often have to do something stupid (like split up, go in the basement; the list is endless) to keep the story moving. But it really annoys me that Morgan couldn't figure out a better way to open his film than using this lame troupe. And, given the opening of the original, Morgan might have figured out a way to deliver a fresh take on the killer POV shot.
Yeah, maybe I should have called for back up before entering the cell.
Another problem with the script is the main characters. In Clark's film, each of the sisters have their own personalities, developed through their dialogue and actions in the film. Granted, the original takes place over a couple days (the remake takes place in one night), giving a bit more time for character development. But there's a sameness to the sisters in Morgan's script. Had the cast, including Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachenberg and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, been given more to work with, they could have delivered believable characters, rather than portraying stereotypical, privileged sorority girls.
%20-%20drunk.jpg)
What makes me different from the other girls in this scene? Well, I drink too much, then vomit on the table.
And the film falls into the curse of Fan-Made Remakes. Like Rob Zombie with his version of Halloween, Morgan gives us an extensive back story for the killer, trying to explain what drove Billy to terrorize the sorority. And, oh my, we get the trifecta of murder, abuse and incest, which leads Billy to snap one Christmas, attacking his family before making Christmas cookies from his dead mother's skin.
Attempting to explain the killer's origins might sound like a good idea, but it comes with a risk. Far too often, such a backstory will also demystify what made the killer so terrifying in the original. The less we know about the killer and their motives, the scarier their presence becomes, because they become a force of unexplainable chaos in an otherwise orderly world.
Also, extensive backstories risk creating empathy for the killer, as in this film. By the time Billy's story is put on screen, the audience is thinking, "Yeah, I get why he's doing this. Anyone would be driven insane after all that." This ends up justifying the killer's actions and, in effect, making them less terrifying.
I'm not saying Morgan was wrong for giving Billy a backstory, and some of the details come into play at the end of the film. But we didn't need the extensive scenes of abuse heaped upon Billy. Mrs. Mac (Andrea Martin, who played sorority girl Phyl in the original) could have delved into his story as she explains the tradition of leaving a present for Billy under the Christmas tree, giving the audience all the information needed for the twist ending to work. Also, she could have introduced some ambiguity in the tale ("They say he...."), making it more a campfire (okay, fireplace in this case) tale akin to an urban legend.
And she could have mentioned how close the facility where Billy in being held. Seriously, Billy walked there in a couple hours, and the cops aren't heading for the house? Okay, the cops are called once the girls figure out they have a killer in the house, but the 911 operator responds by saying the snow is preventing the police from responding. That might fly (barely) in Portland, OR, where no one knows how to drive in the snow. But the film establishes the setting has lots of snow during the holiday season. The cops wouldn't be hampered by icy streets. And this is a sorority house at a college campus, not a cabin in the woods with only one road leading in or out. Even a downed tree or phone line wouldn't keep the authorities from coming, despite how the film makes the house look isolated.
Okay, sorry for that rant about the snowfall. Let's get back to the main point. Had Morgan used the killer POV in the opening, we wouldn't be wondering how Billy got there. He just did. Sometime, you just don't have to explain things when writing a script, if you set things up right.
Come on. I'm already telling the story of Billy. Give me a few more lines, and let's cut the unnecessary scenes to come.
Adding to the film's issues were the Weinsteins. The brothers had issues with the tone of the film, and Bob Weinstein scrapped Morgan's original ending, a direct homage to Clark's film that works better than excessive, action packed and pretty improbable finale released in theaters. And is much less cliche-ridden, as the Weinstein-mandated ending takes place in a hospital, yet the Final Girl is easily tracked down in her room. Oh, and the door doesn't open properly. You know that's gonna come into play real soon! Oh man, where have horror fans seen this before.
But the worse thing the Weinsteins did was release this trailer...
If you've seen the film, you'll notice multiple scenes that aren't in the movie. These weren't shot and discarded at some point in post-production (as happens), but were filmed by the Weinstein's with no intention to add them into the film. The idea was to make the film seem more action-filled than the creepy movie Morgan delivered.
Morgan claims the Weinsteins contacted him and told they wanted to "pick up some shots for TV spots," and he gave his consent. It doubt that would have been the case, had he know what was going into the trailer. And I'm sure lots of audience members were upset to find the trailer flat out lied about the kills in the film.
And the backlash that accompanied the film's release on Christmas Day was predictable. As with Silent Night, Deadly Night, Christian groups slammed the film, especially the decision to release it on December 25th. Critics did the same, with columnist Nikki Finke wondered "...just how many disturbed human beings does The Weinstein Company and MGM think actually want to go see a gory movie on December 25?"
Well, you can count me as one such disturbed humans, Finke. Like many horror fans, I respect the season, but don't mind something dreadful to cut down the saccharine-overdose imposed upon the holiday. Also, such critics forgot that Christmas horror-themed tales go back over a century, the most notable being Charles Dickens short stories like The Story of the Goblins who Stole a Sexton and his novel A Christmas Carol. While not as gruesome as Black Christmas, these tales show that Christmas could be a time for holiday fear, even if the ending of these tales is more uplifting than some modern examples.
Yeah, this isn't scary at all.
As for the kills, they are very gory (at least in the Unrated Cut). If you're not a fan of Fulci-level ocular trauma, you might want to cover your eyes during a few scenes (pun intended). And while Trachtenberg's original death (shown on the DVD in the deleted scenes) was pretty graphic, I chuckled when she's killed by a pair of ice skates (her film, Ice Princess, was released in 2005).
Black X-Mas isn't the classic the original film is, nor, I suspect, is it trying to be. Despite the issues with the script, and the studio interference, the film made back over twice its budget during its theatrical run, and is an entertaining addition to the holiday slasher sub-genre. It delivers the gore, is well acted, and has a nice twist at the end. You can't ask for much more on a cold winter night when you just want to watch a fun, splattery holiday horror.
While the film is available to stream on several sites (both free and subscription-only), the film was only released on DVD in 2007, but no Blu-ray release (except in Germany and Canada). And as the film made the same amount of money on home video as it did in theaters, maybe it's time for a Blu-ray release. Shout Factory, are you reading this review? I'm hoping you are.
Deck the halls with bowels of Clair. Fa la la la la.
You can read my review of the original film here.
No comments:
Post a Comment