Nutcracker Massacre

Ah. Nutcracker Massacre. I haven't asked myself, aloud, ' what the hell are we watching ' before this. I don't know how long this is. I don't care about how long it is. Ideally, you won't either on the sole principle that you don't watch it.

Nonstop guy breathing into the mic, interspersed with the gentlest beatings I've ever seen, never have I witnessed someone so tentatively brutalize another human with a hammer, strangle someone with a garland, mutilate another's genitals so hard they bleed from their ears (?), all with a ginger touch.

The final showdown of gently wrestling on an astroturfed lawn with a cap gun and some plastic jewelry really cemented that I, in fact, was watching this with my own two eyes and that I, in fact, regret it. Merry Christmas and happy holidays, keep it happier by just not watching this.

Really wanted to like this one, as I love both the Nutcracker and hilarious horror comedies. But sadly this is not hilarious. Barely managed a smirk. I did like that the protagonist is named Clara, and her aunt is named Marie (the two versions of the lead character in the ballet, depending on whether you're watching the original or the French production). In between kills - there's one good one where an unfortunate young man finds out who really put the cracking in a nutcracker - the story is very dull, and the pacing is terrible. Not even worth putting on in the background while you deck the halls. It's lovely to see Patrick Bergin again, and he's aging nicely, but his character is relegated to just being the mysterious toymaker who drops exposition.

Nutcracker Massacre is sort of half soap opera, and half the worst horror movie you've ever seen.

With the nutcracker being one of the stupidest villains to ever disgrace the screen.

The story revolves around a lead protaganess, who is dealing with her boyfriend having cheated on her with her best friend right before Christmas.

With some family drama spun in on top of this, the plot centers on a giant nutcracker that was given to her family as a gift for her first Christmas.

Apparently, this bizarre ornament was discovered by her aunt, and displayed at her home, which the young romance novelist is visiting for Christmas.

Hilariously, though, the people in the film treat him like he's an inanimate object, despite the fact that it is clearly a man in a nutcracker suit, that can't stop swaying around, because the actor playing him is unable to remain motionless, while standing in a stationary position.

Either way, he seems to want to act to protect the young woman...by murdering everyone who is even remotely associated with anyone who wrongs her in any way.

At least, that is my best guess...but I might be reading too much into it...as it's not inherently clear.

As this narrative doesn't exactly explain all the people he attacks and kills.

The whole thing is poorly written and constructed, with bad acting, terrible special effects, and a plot structure so ludicrous, it's almost flabbergasting.

But, oddly enough, it's actually engaging enough to sit through.

At one point the nutcracker inexplicably attacks the boyfriend of the main character's rival...cracking his nutsack off in the process.

And it's at this point that you realize the whole thing is laughingly bad.

The lead actress is the only one who manages to put on a competent performance...but even that is in relation to everyone else in the film, who are absolutely horrible.

Everything about it is so bad, that I was genuinely wondering how anyone involved in the process of making it, was able to do so with a straight face, and not just break out laughing.

Cause this can't be serious, can it?

The deeper you get into it, the more entertaining it becomes...simply because it is so ridiculously bad.

In the end, I want to say it's one of those so bad, it's good, kind of films.

But really, it's just bad.

2.5 out of 10.

Movie begins, oddly, with a delivery guy encountering the Nutcracker, then rolling back two days until the events get back up to the delivery guy. Unclear why that was done, other than perhaps to pad running time, or someone wanted a kill scene moved up closer to the beginning than the script had it.

Beatrice Fletcher and May Kelly have lovely looks and voices, and both are above average actors for what in many respects seems like a low-budget movie. The latter's (external to this movie) "Bacco" tattoo and modeling shots with cigarettes make one worry about her looks and voice! Get help with that, please; you should have a long life and career! Prematurely aged skin, lip pursing wrinkles, raspy voice, and deep phlegmy coughs aren't things to aspire to obtain.

Picture quality is decent for a low-budget Christmas horror movie. So many of them lack anything even close to top-of-the line cameras that they look cheap from the outset. Pacing was on the slow side, possibly compensating for lack of sufficient action and dialog.

The wobbling of the nutcracker when standing inanimate by the tree is impossible not to note. A dummy should have been used, or a post or preacher's bench for the actor to lean against.

The Nutcracker has two faces, a shattered "normal" one and fanged angry one. That look of a poor repair job to the "normal" head was peculiar: if explained, I missed it. Maybe they should have added some Kintsugi to the plot somehow to justify it.

There's no transformation between the two Nutcracker heads, just edits. A morph, or stop-action accomplished via miniature or something would have been a worthwhile investment; it could have helped. Maybe they should have hired Charles Band or the like for some insert shots. (Speaking of insert shots, there's a gorgeous foggy landscape one about 24 minutes in; stock footage, or actually by the cinematographer?) The angry head's fangs are, ironically, pointless in that the Nutcracker never bites.

A nut pick and candy canes are used as shivs. An ordinary V-shaped metal nutcracker is not used to crack nuts so much as... well, the man with the bag ain't Santa in this one, and he isn't with it for long though the shot does linger on it. Strangling by garland. But also hammer, knife, and gun which don't seem as Christmassy, not as Christmas horror-y, anyway. Slowed-down Nutcracker music periodically is effective; possibly more use should have been made of such recognizable, quality elements of the ballet.

I'd met one of the screenwriters, Joe Knetter, a number of years back; super-friendly guy. I do wish all involved luck on future projects, even though this one was largely a disappointment. Some more script polishing and fundraising could have helped considerably.

Nutcracker figures are right up there with clowns in terms of being creepy and off-putting, so the concept is ripe for genre treatment even without special variations like what we get here - the design and realization of which does look pretty good. This flick has that going for it, and a cast that generally seems capable and who give earnest performances; not to specifically discount others, but Beatrice Fletcher stands out most as protagonist Clara, and is duly charming. I'll even say that there are some swell ideas here in twisting a classic tale to horror ends. Unfortunately, beyond these factors, things start to break down. I don't doubt the sincerity of anyone involved, and to that end this surely can at least claim to stand taller than the majority of output from The Asylum or especially Uncork'd Entertainment. Between the writing and direction, however, 'Nutcracker massacre' simply doesn't cut it.

From the very start the tone and pacing are both readily described as "astonishingly soft" if not also "slothful." This pertains even to death scenes, and the acting is absolutely impacted in turn. If filmmaker Becca Hirani, or writers Jeff Miller or Joe Knetter, had intended the picture to be, if you will, "anti-horror," then this might make sense. Yet there is no humor by which this might succeed as a horror-comedy; there is no subtlety or nuance to the proceedings with which this might succeed as a more underhanded variety of genre piece (nevermind that the concept kind of throws that possibility out the window in the first place). The dialogue, scene writing, and characterizations are mostly empty and hapless, and almost inspire mocking laughter for how ill-considered they are. The narrative in and of itself is okay, but it feels cluttered and imbalanced: on the one hand toying with an early nineteenth century story, though this element is somewhat deemphasized; on the other hand, heavily driving at the premise of "murderous nutcracker doll," with all other facets further distinctly dragging things down. Even the basic orchestration of shots and scenes, and the cinematography, sometimes raise a quizzical eyebrow. Meanwhile, to the same extent that some cast members (not least Patrick Bergin) really do try to overcome the major deficiencies of writing and direction (with greatly varying degrees of success), some come off notably worse than others - sorry, Andy Dixon, better luck next time.

There were fine possibilities here, but the feature as it exists is bizarrely, woefully lax, lackluster, humdrum, gentle, restrained, muted, subdued - consult your nearest thesaurus for more adjectives. Some aspects are half decent, but the whole is inescapably weak and unconvincing. The root tale and subsequent screenplay direly needed to be revised and tightened to zero in on and boost the best ideas; the screenplay, and the direction, desperately needed a substantial infusion of vitality to allow any of these eighty-five minutes to have anything approaching the desired impact. I see the value that the film has to offer, and maybe more to the point, the value that it could have offered. As it presents, however, 'Nutcracker massacre' is just too meager to really count for anything, and it's hard to give a recommendation. I suppose if you're open to all the wide possibilities of cinema, and are super keen on the idea of 'The nutcracker' being warped as such then one may have fair reason to watch; otherwise, it's tough to conjure a reason. Check it out if you like, and I wish nothing but the best for all involved, but I think your time is best spent elsewhere.