Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming (2013) User Reviews

Disappointing.

[vengeance20 · 2/10 · 23 December 2013]

I thought from seeing this film that it was going to be great, but unfortunately it wasn't all I thought it was going to be.

The effects were pretty crap! The blood effects & sound effects especially! The editing was sloppy & badly done, like it was done by some brainless teens doing it for a college project! The music was badly scored & didn't flow with what was going on screen! The film itself was dull & depressing & had no life in it! The scoring/music, again, didn't help as their'y be silence in dramatic scenes which didn't need silence! It was so diluted & sour!

The acting was OK, not the best, but OK. The characters in the film seemed thin & watery & not well known! Story-line was abit weak & slightly confusing! I also felt that in most scenes in the film dragged on for too long! Sometimes their'd be no dialogue for 3-4 minutes! The less important things were focused on too much than they needed to be dragging the film on for longer, this was awkward! The scene in the van at the end of the film had this treatment!

The deaths were tame as much as the amount of blood & gore! It was quite a let down for a film titled: 'Silent Night, Bloody Night: Home Coming'

Overall it was disappointing & not as good as it leads on to be! 2/10

Terror at Christmas

[TheLittleSongbird · 2/10 · 29 September 2018]

Was drawn into seeing this, with a cool poster/cover, a somewhat intriguing if very derivative premise and as someone with a general appreciation for the genre it fits under. That it was low-budget, which from frequent personal experience is rarely a good sign due to that there are so many poor ones out there (though there are decent to good ones as well), made me though apprehensive.

It is sadly however yet another film seen recently, hence some reiteration because the exact same strengths and flaws present in those films are here, that to me was incredibly disappointing considering its potential which it doesn't do anywhere near enough with. The film is really very bad, with so many huge flaws and doesn't do anything with any potential it had. There is net to nothing good here. The best thing about it is the house, which is actually quite creepy. Shame the rest of the film wasn't.

Going on to the negatives, the story does feel over-stretched and some of it comes over as vague and under-explained in the last third where the film especially became duller, more predictable, more senseless and less unsettled and never gaining momentum. All the characters are too sketchy and with cardboard thin and colourless personalities and with nowhere near enough to make one want to endear to them. Their annoying and illogical decision making and behaviours frustrates. The chemistry is bland and unfocused.

The sound quality is obvious and utilised cheaply (being too loud in the build ups and people's reactions), the effects are shoddy and nearly all of the acting is lacking severely on the whole, though Lee Bane tries. There is no sense of horror or engagement with the awful predicament they're in, and no connecting with the character, it just reeks of indifference which makes the viewer not care less too.

Dialogue can be stilted and rambling while the pace and film drags on forever, apparent from the very start, never recovering that interest is lost fast. The ending has no build-up and just ends ridiculously. Found too many of the supposedly shocking moments not surprising or scary and the atmosphere dreary, due to the excessive obviousness, a lot of dumb and vague moments and explanations and the lack of tension and suspense. Thrills are none, thanks to stodginess and excessive over-familiarity, and found myself never invested in the drama, which tended to be indifferently acted, interminably paced and statically directed.

There are a lot of really dull and going nowhere plot elements and often nonsensical and confusing character motivations, while too many of the things to make you shocked are far from creative or unsettling. It all feels rather tame and so what-like, while there is no real feel of the Christmas spirit here.

Nothing freaky or interesting, no development and too derivative, while everything is unimaginative and are more odd than scary, completely failing to show any sense of dread. There is nothing interesting or illuminating with what the film was trying to do and the drama is overwrought with no momentum and a lot of weirdness. The direction is barely there and disorganised and the music is ill-fitting. The film is very amateurish visually, too drearily lit and shows no care in the way it's shot. The opening shot is a good example at how shoddily the film is shot.

Summing up, very bad. 2/10 (only for the house) Bethany Cox

If you're looking for a good Festive horror movie go elsewhere

[Stevieboy666 · 4/10 · 23 December 2019]

I first watched this about 5 years ago and had I had an IMDB account back then I probably would have scored this 2 or 3 out of 10. However, on a second viewing it did not come across as quite as terrible as my initial opinion. The opening scene is set in 1987 and has a man driving a Ford Transit MK6 van - these didn't go into production until 2000! To make matters worse they have scribbled on the vehicle's registration plate.Not a promising start. Anyway, initial goof aside, we have a masked killer who wears black leather gloves, a touch of Italian Giallo perhaps. Bad actors are killed at regular intervals, this is what most slasher fans want and it does at least deliver on that count. Some of the deaths are pretty gory, though the effects are dirt cheap looking. The house in which the movie is largely set is very creepy looking, and I liked the out of tune piano rendition of "Silent Night". Plus we have an almost obligatory girl in the shower scene. Thankfully James Plumb directed this, which is hardly a recommendation, but producer Andrew Jones has been in the director's chair for some of the worst movies that I have ever seen. My score 4/10, perhaps a bit generous but it is the Season of Goodwill!

Disappointing Remake

[Michael_Elliott · 22 January 2015]

Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming (2013)

* (out of 4)

Wilfred Butler commits suicide by setting himself on fire. His grandson is left his mansion but when he plans to sell it a maniac with an axe shows up to start killing people.

SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT: THE HOMECOMING is a British remake of the 1972 cult film that features Patrick O'Neil and John Carradine. When this film first went into production it really wasn't clear if it was a remake or a long-rumored sequel. Well, it's certainly a remake but those hoping for a sequel to the original film will be happy to know that it's on the way too. As for this film, it's a pretty bad film on many levels and also a very frustrating one.

I say frustrating because even though the original was quite good, there were some flaws that could have been ironed out and made into an even better movie. Sadly this isn't that movie. In fact, the flaws in the original are somewhat made worse here. On a technical level this film, like the original, really shows its budget. The entire thing has a very cheap look and feel to it and there's really not a bit at atmosphere or anything else creepy. The film contains one of the worst CGI effects I've seen in my life and it won't take long for you to know what I'm talking about. The gore effects really aren't any more impressive, although I must admit that they did have a certain charm if you grew up in the 80s watching those direct-to-VHS titles. These low-budget films often featured kills off screen and then someone throwing blood onto a blanket or wall. The same type of stuff is used here.

The performances are pretty much what you'd expect from a film like this and that's not very good. The biggest issue I had with the movie is that it pretty much copies the original film with only some changes towards the end. The original film had a terrific plot but there were a few things that could have been changed for the better but that doesn't happen here. In fact, I'd say the story appears to be the least concerning thing to the filmmakers. Instead they go for the blood effects and these here just aren't enough to carry the picture. Fans of the original Friday THE 13TH might want to check this out for Adrienne King but be warned that she only supplies a voice.

Absolutely awful film

[sqdb · 1/10 · 7 December 2013]

I agree with the other reviewer. I was also fooled by the favourable reviews on the DVD cover and the great-looking picture on the box. However, this turned out to be the equivalent of cinematic excrement. The plot doesn't make sense, the sound quality is abysmal and I have seen better acting in a pantomime. Believe me, this film makes the Friday The 13th franchise look like Citizen Kane. Don't waste your money on this film or your time by watching it. If you want to see a good Christmas-themed slasher movie, then check out Silent Night Deadly Night or the original Black Christmas. You will thank me later. This film is truly awful and only belongs in a bargain bin, but even that would be too kind a fate for this. Utter rubbish of the highest order.

Oh dear...

[dweir18 · 1/10 · 15 July 2014]

Bought this for £3.50 and it wasn't even worth that! One of the worst films I have attempted to watch. The cover and synopsis on the back left my wife and I thinking we would be in for a half decent scare-fest. We were so wrong. Acting that we spent most of our time laughing in disbelief at, overdubs that were so badly out of sync they reminded me of really bad adverts on the TV and a killer who's "menacing" voice sounded ridiculous! We are actually only 37 mins into the film as I write this and it is that bad I couldn't wait until it finished. Terrible, I can't find anything good to say about it unfortunately.

Terrible

[thehorrorwithin · 1/10 · 24 October 2013]

I really can't even muster up the energy to write a full in depth review for this title. It was only on the off chance that I picked up this film, I looked at the awesome cover and read the synopsis and believe this had the potential to be a really good film.

I was wrong, as the saying goes; you can never judge a book by it's cover. The acting was poor, the storyline was terrible and the camera work was below that in which you would find in a soap opera.

It was obvious the budget was low but I feel more money went into the cover than that of the film. There was heaps of potential but it was never realised. Sadly and it pains me to say this, but this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. I've sat through, Freddy Got Fingered and Gigli and still they seemed so much better than this film.

British horror is dead and only seemed any good with the help of Shaun Of The Dead. Please bear in mind, this is only my opinion. One star might be harsh but two would be too kind.

Amateur Axe Maniac 101.

[hitchcockthelegend · 2/10 · 5 January 2014]

I always try to be positive about low budget British horror films, for in the main there is good intentions and some skill involved from the makers, Silent Night, Bloody Night: The Homecoming is practically impossible to be positive about. From the cheapness of the opening shot, picture is awash with bad effects, bad acting, boorish plotting and direction (James Plumb) that wouldn't pass muster as an entry in a first time teenage director competition. In short it's an absolute mess, like a bunch of people sat in a bar drinking one day and decided to pop around to the local abandoned house and play Am-Dram and see what happens. Basically an unofficial remake of an early 1970s film that itself wasn't exactly good, this is best avoided by anyone who values low budget horror. For this may just turn you off the medium. 2/10 purely for the house itself and some rather nifty artwork that has promoted this drek.

Curious ...

[parry_na · 4/10 · 18 January 2016]

As titles go, this isn't one that trips of the tongue. The awkwardness continues throughout this low-budget would-be slasher, with variable acting and sound design. The opening moments, there to lure in the viewer, are amongst the least effective thanks to some artless CGI and mismatched sound dubbing.

Things pick up a little after the effective opening credits have rolled. One of the reasons I often enjoy low-budget productions is that they use, out of necessity at times, inventing ways of telling a story that negates the need for flashy effects. Such is the case here, with some interesting direction and camera angles used to partially obscure the details of some of the gory moments – of which there many. Much of the action takes place without dialogue, which adds an extra sinister layer to events.

This seems to be James Plumb's project; he is credited as director and writer, but as the film is often a scene-by-scene recreation of a 1972 American horror, Plumb's is a pretty ambitious claim. Discrepancies occur – the nicely seedy Wilfred Butler dies and leaves his house to grandson Jeffrey. When we meet Jeffrey, he immediately makes a bad impression – perhaps that is the point, inviting us to believe he is the masked, brutal killer who is this film's violent protagonist. And Jeffrey is just a petulant boor with no charm whatsoever. When the killer is revealed to be Wilfred (not dead after all), we are left to wonder how old this man actually is, and how he manages to physically assault and kill so many people.

This is a fairly interesting, if mangled film in which the often underwritten characters' sole purpose is the brief lead-up to their own murder.