Nice effects though.

There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

This movie is pretty much wall to wall gore, in marked contrast to the original. Yet I found myself really involved in its pacing, in the cinematography and even the lighting. It's not a slapdash affair.After the critical and financial failure of this film, Bob Clark began work on a sequel to the original with Olivia Hussey and John Saxon reprising their roles of Jess and Lt. Ken Fuller. Jess would have been the new house mother in this version, but Clark died before it could get made.Despite the pain that it took to make the film, I really think it's worth watching. It shouldn't take over for the original, but it's worth your time this holiday season.

***SPOILERS*** Bloody re-make of the 1974 slasher flick has a jaundice affected psycho Billy Lenz, Robert Mann,brake out of a local sanitarium as cause havoc among the students of the Delta Alpha Kappa sorority that was once his home. Having been abused by his deranged mother,Karin Konoval, who hated him because of his skin color-yellow-and really wanted a girl Billy was later raped by her who later produced a girl Agnas, Dean Friss, of her own with Billy being both her brother as well as father. Revenge came soon enough with Billy killing both his mom and her boyfriend, who was impotent,and ending up being put away for life at the State's Clark Sanitarium.That's until Christmas Eve 2006 where Billy now 35 broke out and headed for the sorority house to murder and dismember, by poking out his victims eyes, everyone there. Obviously insane and delusional Billy with the help of his sister/daughter Agnas end up murdering almost all the girls at the sorority for what seems like no reason at all, they never did him or Agnas any harm, just to show how crazy that the two are. The usual blood splattering scenes you would expect in a movie like this but it being done on Christmas making it far worse then it could have been if it was done on non religious holidays like "Halloween" or "Saint Valentine Day" or "Alfonso-Scareface Al-Capone's Birthday".***SPOILERS***We get the standard or usual slasher movie ending with both Billy and Agnas coming back to life-After being killed off-to finish the very job that they both started. Only to be killed for a second time in a far more bloody and spectacular fashion. In Billy's case being impaled on a Christmas tree as part of its holidays decorations. Actress Andrea Martin who was one of the killer's victims in the original "Black Christmas" in 1974 was back again for an encore as housemother Ms. Barbara MacHenry who ended up getting brained by a falling icicle as she was trying to flee for her life from the two psycho killers.

No one watching this could argue there is anything remotely resembling an original idea here. From the killers "motivations", to the method in which the victims are dispatched, we've all seen it before. It was a nice touch to have a back story told through flashbacks, but the emphasis there was on the disturbing scenes for the sake of shock, and not on explaining motivation, which we simply have to cobble together on our own. Despite this lack of information most will guess the killers identity before the end. Having one killer "unknown" while the other is seen committing his murders leaving no hint of mystery is a nice touch though. They got a lot of talented actresses to appear in this schlock, I can only assume they were all going through dry patches in their careers. From a technical point of view I can't fault it. Scenes are shot well, editing is good, but the cant make up for the overall feel of the movie, which is the afore mentioned lack of originality. I know this is a remake of the 1974 film of the same name, and even stars one of the original actors, but the question I have is, did this film really need to be remade? I don't believe so, and I think it's a symptom of the lazy and over all lack of originality sweeping the American movie industry now. As a rule of thumb, I no longer bother with remakes or sequels when they come out and only see them later, if they get great reviews.

A lot of reviewers seem to hate this film because it is a remake of the 1979 film Black Christmas. I can't argue, the 1979 one was better, but mainly because the amount of vulgar language, sex talk, bad acting and awful soundtrack made it one hell of a horrible experience.But the 1979 one had vulgar language too, you say? While, yes, but it was in moderation and was used by characters to show their low-class, immature personality. In the 2006 version, the bad language and sex stuff seems to only be there to appeal to perverts and idiots who think crude humor is funny.The acting was awful, and the soundtrack was that 21st century crud. The only advice I can give is to avoid this movie at all costs, stick with the original.