Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2 (1987)

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.