Christmas Nightmare (2001) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
Low Budget and Cheap With Few Redeemable Qualities.
drownsoda9019 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Since I usually enjoy Christmas-themed horror movies, I decided to rent "Christmas Nightmare" when I saw it on the shelf at Hollywood Video. I could've passed on it though. The movie begins on December 25, 1947 at an isolated house in the California woods, with a bright Christmas tree in the front window. A man, after brutally slaughtering his two daughters, dumps their bodies in a pond and then hangs himself from a windmill while his dog watches. Cut to present day, on December 22, a young married couple are whisked off to a safe house one stormy night after witnessing the murder of a presidential candidate. They end up at the wrong house, which is incidentally the house where the gruesome happenings occurred years earlier. While spending their holidays at the empty little house, the wife, Alice, begins seeing things, mainly visions of the sisters who were killed. Her husband thinks she's going insane, but when the agent who's guarding them begins to act strangely, the events are about to re-enact themselves.

A fairly cheesy holiday-horror film, "Christmas Nightmare" (also known as "The Damned") has a few little nice bits that are thrown into it. The story, while it may not seem like it from my synopsis, is reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining", only set in California in a tiny little house. You can especially see the parallels when the two little girls are seen around the property, which is very similar to the axe-murdered twins in "The Shining". There are some surprisingly chilling little bits in the film though. The opening scene was great, a really fitting way to start the movie. The murder flashback of the girls, while amateurish, is actually a little creepy, and the zoom shot of the father, who puts his bloody finger to his mouth in a shhh motion, was really haunting. I'm not quite sure why, but that quick shot really creeped me out.

Besides the minimal positives in this film, it's also overloaded with negatives. The acting was far below average, besides the woman who played Alice, who was actually not bad. But the actor who played the husband was really unconvincing. Second, are some of the special effects. There's a shot of the windmill that looked like it came straight from a cheesy video game, and the effects-laden finale was just unbelievably corny. The version that I saw was titled "Christmas Nightmare", but the Christmas-type setting isn't really present at all. The only few bits that even involve the holiday (besides the dates) are the opening with the Christmas tree, and the holiday sleigh bell music that is heard very little. Other than that, there's no snow on the ground, no holiday-related themes - the fact that this takes place during Christmas is highly irrelevant.

Overall, "Christmas Nightmare" is a low-budget, cheap little horror movie. It has a few nice touches, but it's mostly amateurish and sometimes uninteresting. If you enjoy really low-budget horror movies, you might like this, but don't expect anything that's too involved with the holiday (as the cover art might suggest). Had this film had a larger budget and a little polishing, it could've been quite good. 3/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
"Hollywood Video...can I have my money back?"
Monica49373 December 2004
Cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap...*sigh* this is a beyond low budget low budget film. My guess is they only had about $50 spending cash and used it all on the effects, which wouldn't surprise me because of how terribly moronic they were. I think, out of the whole film, only one effect stood out as almost decent: The scene where the small wooden horse coming to life and walks across the table...sad, I know. The other reason (besides that one decent effect) why I decided to give this a 2 instead of a 1 were because of the small amount of surprise scenes that actually did what they were supposed to do...surprise you. Of course, those were too far and few between. Overall this movie was extremely slow paced, with a load of cliché's bad directors use to make shitty horror films (if you could even call this horror...more like borer *yawn*) Vince Di Meglio must have had a fascination with the "stare at each other or over your shoulder at each other" cliché because pretty much that was the only interaction between characters...obviously not providing enough character buildup so that you can feel sorry for them and not want them to die. I wanted everyone to die in this crapfest...well...maybe not the leading lady...OK yeah including the leading lady. Don't watch this I warn you! Only watch it if you have a liking for movies with really bad effects and actors. 2/10
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slow-moving and tedious, with little to redeem it.
rixrex28 December 2006
I can take a good slow-paced horror film with no problem as long as there is some plot point being developed or some character being studied, but this one is just a complete yawner. Did you ever stay up really late as a kid to catch some rare scare film on a late show and then kept nodding off trying to watch it? Well, this will make you do that even if you watch it in the early afternoon. The concept could have been promising with more development, more characters involved and in danger, and if it had been less cerebral and more visceral, but alas it was not, and so it is one that I will purge from my nice collection of Christmas-themed horror films, sadly. I suggest you do not see it unless you need a cure for insomnia, or if you do want to see the attractive leading lady who should be doing better things.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't waste your time
merv122519 June 2003
Lifeless horror film that did not keep me interested. It's very slow moving with inane dialogue and long stretches in which nothing happens. The main characters were listless and undeveloped, and I couldn't care less what happened to them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Nightmarishly good
monkey-5927 January 2003
For a low budget direct to video horror film, this was quite good! It actually looks like the people who made this cared about what they were doing. The acting was really good, it reminded me of a low-budget version of The Shining. Definitely worth renting.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not bad but could have been better.
U8RU48615 January 2003
I'll be brief and to the point with my review. The first half hour of this movie is well designed, and actually works. I rent many low budget horror films from my local video store, most are cheesy, campy, or just trash. I expected no more than that from this movie, but after the first few minutes I was kinda surprised at how well it was made. I didn't even mind the obvious digital effects, because the story was allowing me to suspend disbelief, and the acting was above average for a movie of this kind. The problem is after the first half hour everything had been said. The movie began to repeat itself over and over, and the tension that was built within the first half hour just sat there. It didn't continue to build mind you, IT JUST SAT THERE. Overall I'll give this film 6 out of 10 for at least trying to be more than a blood, guts and breast film. And just so you know, there is only blood in this film neither of the latter, which is, to a degree, refreshing.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed