As we’ve often said on this site, some horror franchises (well, actually, loads of them) go absolutely batshit crazy after the first one is considered popular enough to warrant sequels, remakes, or reboots. And Silent Night, Deadly Night is no exception. The original 1984 movie was not “good” in any cinematic sense, but it was mean-spirited and silly enough to gain a formidable reputation. Both from pearl-clutching critics and an audience that lapped up the exploitation theme of a Santa-clad psycho creating havoc with an axe, not to mention a grudge against nuns. It was (sort of) banned after some typically overwrought individuals formed protests about the central concept, which drove publicity for it until its jaw-droppingly dopey sequel was released in 1987. Padded out with generous (and cheap) amounts of footage from the first one and blessed with a nutzoid performance from the lead (All together now… “Garbage Day!!”), it became a low-level cult. Three sequels followed, two of which had nothing to do with the original story arc. Then we got the rather trashy and highly enjoyable “remake” in 2012, which was just called Silent Night. As much of a guilty pleasure as it is (gore, bad taste kills, and gratuitous nudity), it wasn’t really a retelling of the story. There’s no Billy or Ricky, the flamethrower is taken from a real-life incident, believe it or not (the so-called “Covina Massacre” in 2008), and it’s more of a gory whodunnit than the other films. Which brings us to… now. A bona fide remake of the 80s “classic”. This version is directed and co-written by Mike P. Nelson, who contributed to V/H/S/ 85 and made the (slightly odd) Wrong Turn remake in 2021. It stars Rohan Campbell as Billy Chapman (who was the annoying Corey in Halloween Ends … but we shouldn’t hold that against him), along with Ruby Modine (best known in genre terms from Happy Death Day). So, “garbage!” or “yay!”?

 

The plot is basically a reinterpretation of the original narrative, with some major twists. But it starts in the same way with young Billy Chapman (no baby Ricky here) visiting Grandpa at the local care home. After Grandpa tells him to be good for Santa, the old dude vomits up blood and carks it. If that isn’t bad enough, the poor traumatised kid sees his parents being killed by a shotgun-wielding Father Christmas on the way home. This turns out to be a flashback-dream as Billy (now Campbell) awakens in a motel room on December 20th in present times. The room comes complete with an en-suite dead body in the shower, and a guilty Billy exits before the cops catch him. Turns out that he has an internal voice that drives him to murder “naughty” people in the run-up to Christmas, whilst (obviously) wearing the requisite suit and beard. He travels to Hackett (“like the name”) and meets Pamela (Modine), who works in her father’s gift shop. There’s a spark between them, but Billy’s inner voice is still driving him to target and kill people. Not only that, but a mysterious deviant is snatching and kidnapping children in the vicinity. So, is Billy really nuts, and will this be his last Christmas?

 

There’s quite a bit to like about SNDN25, and at least you can’t say that it doesn’t add its own flavour to the Christmas mix. There was nothing supernatural or paranormal in the 80s films or the 2012 edition. But (without giving away spoilers) expect something a little more fantastical here. Whilst this adds some intriguing twists to the story, especially regarding Billy’s origin story and the fate of his parents, it can lead to an overly busy and slightly muddled narrative that sometimes suffers from loose ends, forgotten components, and simply too many plot strands. Modern sensibilities won’t allow Billy to just be a psychopathic nutjob who mumbles “punish” and “naughty” before hacking anybody he encounters on the way to an orphanage. Can’t blame this murder spree on sadistic nuns this time. Nope. There’s a whole lot more going on here, some things which should be on the naughty list and some deserve to be recorded on the nice edition.  

 

There’s a very nice aesthetic to SNDN that will endear it to genre fans. In tone, it falls somewhere in between the pure unabashed and unpolished exploitation of the 80s and the slight scuzziness of the 10s, borrowing from both eras and adding something of its own variation. Whilst the posters and trailers point to the fact that it’s from “the studio that brought you Terrifier 2 & 3”, it’s a lot less gory, with some of the potentially graphic kills occurring just out of frame. Having said that, the murder count is well into double figures (like, well into it) and some moments (particularly related to cranial trauma) don’t spare the bloody details. During the opening credits, and subsequent sequences where Billy identifies a victim, a pure Hammer-horror title screen is shown in satisfying red and black graphics to kickstart the carnage. Cool. This carries over into the way the camera apes the POV-of-the-killer sequences, where someone (usually Billy) creeps up on people just before the killing blow. It’s a nice homage to past slashers and feels like a decent throwback style.

 

And of course, there are callbacks to the original movie. Billy’s preference for an axe and a red suit is the most obvious similarity. But there are plenty of other riffs on the most remembered moments, such as impalement on decorative antlers, an arrow to the chest, and a decapitation on a snowy mode of transport. And yes, someone does reference a 24-hour period devoted to the collection of refuse. Most of all, though, it’s the two leads that make it more relatable and likeable, as opposed to a modern variant on a “nasty”. Veering a little close to a Hallmark Christmas movie, the chemistry between Campbell and Modine hits the mark. This isn’t the Billy who enters a fugue state and only says two words whilst on a killing spree, Campbell (far better here than in Halloween Ends) makes you want to like him and think of him more than an axe murderer. He has a personality and a purpose (as warped as that is). Modine is also excellent and really should be in far more genre films. It helps that Pam (don’t call her Pammy!) is not a goody-two-shoes, being a complicated character with anger management issues and occasional sweary freak-outs. You don’t see the average final girl beat up two kids in a hockey rink, do you? They both make the unorthodox final act work a bit better than it actually should. It’s also worth mentioning Billy’s “inner voice, played by prolific audio actor Mark Acheson, who gives real character and empathy to his “role”.

 

The only real thing that holds SNDN back is the sheer amount of effort that has gone into making it “different” to the 1984 storyline. It’s difficult to explain in detail without going into spoiler country, but there’s a lot of plot. This works in some respects, giving a reason for Billy’s parents to be murdered rather than just a scummy robber getting his (literal) jolly-on. But it also adds a whole smorgasbord of extra plot strands that are never really explained and just complicate things to some extent. The lead character isn’t just a random fruitcake on a killing rampage, and the pureness of that slasher concept is lost. There’s no element of a whodunnit either, well, maybe a little in one respect. But you’ve got (*deep breath*); the mystery of Billy’s inner voice, the effect Santa suits have on him, his adherence to a strange ritual involving an advent calendar, what happens if he doesn’t perform a ritual, how he spots “naughty” people, Pam’s weird violent outbursts, the abusive relationship that she seems to have with a police officer, an underground Nazi Christmas party (!?!), and most distracting of all… the mysterious kidnapping of kids and the identity of the “snatcher” doing it. And that’s only part of the story's contents! And whilst it's kind of admirable that so much thought has been thrown at the remake of such a simplistic slasher film, you’ll end up pondering just what the deal was with various elements that just seem forgotten about by the time the end credits are rolling.

 

The film works at its grin-worthy best when it just embraces its exploitation roots. Tonally bizarre when compared with other moments in the film, the Nazi party sequence (where an axe-wielding Billy takes on 30-odd swastika-appreciating Santas and a leader with an Uzi!) is enormous fun (despite some erratic editing), and you can’t help wishing for more rambunctious scenes like that. The multi-murder flashback satisfies some of that craving, as the lead character reminisces about his greatest hits… including one with a chainsaw! It’s when the balance between these OTT scenes and the characterisations of Billy and Pam (Pilly? Bammy?) hits the sweet spot that it works best. So, some of the audience may be flummoxed by the more paranormal occurrences and a couple of 80s-style SFX lightshows.

 

In summary, it’s no Terrifier 3, but it is a very welcome and slightly daffy take on Christmas horror. Fans of Christmas Evil and other seasonal oddities are likely to get as much of a kick from it as would fans of the original film. It doesn’t work quite as well as it could, simply because of a common problem with many Christmas meals (i.e. too much stuffing). It does seem that a villain can’t just be a villain for villainous reasons these days. But it does slay when it focuses on the interplay between Billy and Pam, along with the slasher antics of the Anti-Santa. Alongside all the vapid blockbusters that fill multiplexes at this time of year, this can still be a most wonderful choice, but don’t expect a Christmas miracle. Happy holidays!