Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987)

TOMATOMETER

No Tomatometer score yet...

No critic reviews yet...

AUDIENCE SCORE

Critic Consensus: No consensus yet.


Movie Info

In this horror sequel, the younger brother of the murderer in the previous film takes up his sibling's unfinished business. Dressed up as Santa Claus, the young man goes on a killing spree, murdering the innocent townsfolk in a variety of gory and gruesome ways.

Rating: R (adult situations/language, violence)
Genre: Drama, Horror, Comedy
Directed By:
Written By: Joseph H. Earle, Lee Harry
In Theaters:
Runtime:
Live Home Video

Cast


as Jennifer
Show More Cast

News & Interviews for Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2

Friend Ratings

No Friends? Inconceivable! Log in to see what your friends have to say.

Login

Critic Reviews for Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2

All Critics (5) | Top Critics (1)

Full Review… | October 22, 2002
Chicago Reader
Top Critic

It's hard to be prepared for how much of a nothing this movie is.

Full Review… | December 26, 2012
Antagony & Ecstasy

inane

March 11, 2008

Not as good as the original ... and that one kinda stunk, too!

April 3, 2005
eFilmCritic.com

Though Part 2 isn't much more dignified than its predecessor, at the very least its isolated pleasures have a culminating effect.

Full Review… | October 21, 2003
Slant Magazine

Audience Reviews for Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2

Second entry in the series is proof of lack of originality. Reusing footage of the first film, the filmmakers try to backtrack what happened to Billy's younger brother. This film just ended up being a total waste of time, and it was more tongue in cheek, bordering on Comedy horror. The Payoff was bland, and left you wanting more. What you get is a very disappointing sequel the controversial Cult Hit, Silent Night, Deadly Night. Although the first film was nothing new or too original in the Slasher genre, it was a fun, entertaining slab of cheese. This film just feels uninspired and weak. The filmmakers clearly took the easy way out in coming up with a sequel. This film just doesn't have the fire that the first one had. The film just ends up being far too silly to be any good. While the first one pushed the boundaries of good taste in the horror genre, this one is just a bland film with nothing new or original to offer up to fans of the first film. The directing is poor and the acting is also bad. While wasting half the film with recycled footage of the first film, the filmmakers ended up with a bad film, and more so lost the potential they had to follow-up an underrated Cult hit with something really good. This film just doesn't have the controversial elements that made the first film worth seeing. In a way, the filmmakers toned down those elements, and they play more out for comic relief than shock, thus it may disappoint fans. Avoid this one and sequels after it.

TheDudeLebowski65
Alex roy

Super Reviewer

It's bad when a crappy sequel to a good movie occurs (looking at you, Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls). It's bad enough when a franchise begins from a great movie when it should have stayed at one movie (Bring It On, that was a shot at you). Things get worse when an average movie, with the potential to go up or down, with obvious things to improve, goes even further downhill (New Nightmare, to me, is the black sheep of the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise). And things get excruciating when terrible movies are given sequels (why, why, WHY did someone do a Hobgoblins 2?!)

But do you know what is even worse than all of the above? A movie ranking somewhere between average and bad getting a sequel... and MOST OF THE DAMN FOOTAGE IS DIRECTLY LIFTED FROM THE MOVIE BEFORE IT!
My God, that is just... that is pathetic. I've talked about lazy film making before (Manos The Hands Of Fate is a triumphant example at doing bugger all) but to actually just unashamedly use scenes from the previous installment? Yes, I understand the intent: to drive home the plot of the sequel and for the benefit of the people who haven't seen the first. Hell, The Hills Have Eyes Part 2 from the 80's used footage from the first to provide flashbacks for some of the returning characters (leading to one incredibly head-scratching moment when THE DOG remembers! That's probably one big reason why Wes Craven disowned it). But come on! How exactly can you use footage from the first movie when the characters discussing the events weren't even there? What, are you going to retcon them into being bystanders? Were they extras that gained a promotion? All of a sudden, it's "Guy Who Points" moving up to be the second male lead or something stupid.
Apparently, the idea was to re-edit the first film and pass it off as a sequel just because the filmmakers were paid an appalling amount of money. Two points I'd like to make:
1. If that happens, that is a clear sign a movie is not to be made
2. The original idea would have essentially made the movie a talking Malibu Stacy with a new hat (I think Hobgoblins 2 pretty much took on that idea)

So, is that the only thing to criticize the film for? Nope! I have one other major complaint.
The character we focus on is Ricky, the younger brother of Billy, the villain protagonist from the first film. He's in a mental hospital ('cos that's original for a horror) and talks about the events from the first film and his life up till that point.

Now, who can tell me what happens to Ricky? If you said "He gets over his traumas and lives a rather uneventful life", you're not even in the ballpark. If you said "He starts his own killing spree that closely resembles his brother's", give yourself 25 points or take whatever's in this box *puts a box up on the counter*. Proving that killin' folks is in the blood, this film just doesn't even try to do anything remotely original. Even the kills are uninspired.

Oh, slight spoiler (though not so much, just read on), this movie has one of the most overused cliches ever in not just horror/thriller films but in any medium known to humanity: the age old closing-shot-focuses-on-the-killer-looking-dead-only-for-their-eyes-to-open-just-before-the-end-credits thing. I'm sure I'm not the only one sick of seeing that. Sometimes, it works, there are exceptions to every rule but here it's just adding more fuel to an already raging fire.

At least the first one had a decent premise. Killings at Christmas due to a guy in a Santa suit killing your parents all those years ago. Sounds promising enough. Took a while for the action to start but the film's still a decent slasher.
Pull an Ace Ventura on this, watch the first and forget any notions that there is anything following on.

Passenger1986
David S

Super Reviewer

So bad it's great. Terrible acting, terrible writing, shoddy cinematography all add up to a barrel of laughs. PUNISH! The main actor is fantastic and does give off the aura of a demented madman. The fact they just used so much footage from part 1 really took some balls and I think they need to be applauded for this. the climax of the film is so insane. When the cop stops him and says "no funny business I know how to use this" referring to the gun he has pointed at the madmans head, the scene just cuts and somehow the gun has been turn on the cop and shoots him. But the number 1 reason to watch this film is what happens after this. All I'm saying is "garbage day!"

matertenebraum
Cassandra Maples

Super Reviewer

Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 Quotes

– Submitted by Garrett P (4 years ago)

Discussion Forum

Discuss Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 on our Movie forum!