Surprisingly incoherent and boring

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I'm giving it a 1 - but let me be clear, I really enjoyed this film. For me a 1 is a badge of honor for this film. Like Troll 2, or The Room - this film is a lot of fun to watch with a group and while drinking. It's a real joy.

Quite possibly the worst sequel EVER!!! With the first film being nothing short of a masterpiece of slasher cinema, this film is a complete and utter disappointment.So much potential...wasted.The entire first half is a cheap rehashing of the first film...making the entire thing come off as a lazy cash grab (though I can't imagine word of mouth did it any good).What is most frustrating, is that they set themselves up so perfectly for a sequel at the end of the first film. But then chose the most uninspired and least creative route, they could have possibly taken.And the second half isn't much better, either. It's boring, drawn out, uninspired, poorly acted, and chock full of some of the most patently ridiculous kills you'll ever have the displeasure of watching.The whole story is retold here, from the perspective of Billy's (the antagonist from the first film) now institutionalized little brother- in flashbacks- despite the fact that he couldn't possibly have been privy to many details (as all parties involved would end up deceased).Far too much time is dedicated to the attempted development of our antagonists psychological character...and what follows simply doesn't make up for it.In the end, this film fails in every regard, where the original managed to succeed...and is simply a waste of time.2 out of 10.

Truthfully I really enjoyed the 2nd half of the movie because it's new and it has the brother continuing on the legacy of the "Santa clause Killer" I think most people when they say this film sucks they are really referring to the first half when it is completely retelling the story of the first one which shouldn't have even been even 25 percent of the story. I think it should of built up after Ricky sees his brother die. Then Ricky from his childhood to his manhood where he ends up going insane because then you would of understood and it wouldn't have been too long. I really like the 2nd half because it's more comedic than the first and I truly liked it's sense of humor with lines like, "Garbage Day!", "Naughty This!", "I'm Really Mad Now!", "Good I love a chase!", and "I wanna talk about some OLD TIMES!". For me it's a 5 out of 10 for the 2nd half of the film that is. I really think it is an unappreciated movie when people say, "It flat out sucks!" Because the 2nd half wasn't that bad. If you watch it watch the 2nd half and skip the 1st half. You won't regret it!

Ricky (Eric Freeman), the brother of the killer in the first film, talks to a psychiatrist (James Newman) about how he became a brutal killer after his brother died, leading back to Mother Superior (Jean Miller).I can say with confidence that this movie ranks among the worst in the horror genre. I have seen worse, but it is not often. In 2012, I watched roughly 500 films... and "Silent Night, Deadly Night 2" ranks in the top three for being terrible. I would not wish it upon anyone.The biggest problem is that it spends the entire first half of the film showing clips from the first film. So, you have no reason to watch the first movie if you watch this one. And if you did watch the first one, this film will bore you to tears... maybe even to death. The second half improves, but that does not take very much.The second biggest problem is Eric Freeman. We could call his performance "unintentionally funny", but that would be too complimentary. He cannot act, he chews the scenery, there is nothing sympathetic or interesting about him. How he was hired remains a mystery, and he can wear it as a badge of honor that he may be the worst "actor" ever to get a paycheck.