Get movie widget Recommend it Add to Favorites

Eric Freeman, James Newman, Jean Miller, Elizabeth Kaitan, Linnea Quigley ... see more see more... , Elizabeth Clayton , James L. Newman

In this horror sequel, the younger brother of the murderer in the previous film takes up his sibling's unfinished business. Dressed up as Santa Claus, the young man goes on a killing spree, murdering ... read more read more...the innocent townsfolk in a variety of gory and gruesome ways. ~ Iotis Erlewine, Rovi

Flixster Users

33% liked it

6,374 ratings

R, 1 hr. 28 min.

Directed by: Lee Harry

Release Date: June 1, 1987

Invite friends to see

Stats: 354 reviews

Your Rating



clear rating

Flixster Reviews (354)


  • November 14, 2009
    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,... read more 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.
  • September 12, 2009
    So bad it's great. Terrible acting, terrible writing, shoddy cinematography all add up to a barrel of laughs. PUNISH! The main actor is fantastic and does give off the aura of a demented madman. The fact they just used so much footage from part 1 really took some balls and I thin... read morek they need to be applauded for this. the climax of the film is so insane. When the cop stops him and says "no funny business I know how to use this" referring to the gun he has pointed at the madmans head, the scene just cuts and somehow the gun has been turn on the cop and shoots him. But the number 1 reason to watch this film is what happens after this. All I'm saying is "garbage day!"
  • August 18, 2007
    Pointless sequel to an ugly original movie. They prolong the pain by showing an extended flashback to the first film. It had the wrong killer-Santa vibes throughout. It's mean-spirited with no fun to be had.
  • December 16, 2010
    This hardly counts as a film. I'm not saying that from any kind of snobbery -- but nearly the first hour of this film is a full retelling of the movie that preceded it, complete with huge blocks of flashback. It's Silent Night Deadly Night 1 plus some. The plus some is ultimately... read more amusing, but just skip the first hour or so if you've already seen the first film.
  • December 19, 2008
    I'm not trying to make the month of December all about the worst movies I've ever seen, but it is sure ending up that way. SNDN part 2 is possably the laziest sequel I have ever seen. It essentially recaps the entire first film in the initial 40 minutes - scene by scene. What's l... read moreeft is a completely thrown together pile of pointless slasher garbage that is told entirely in flashback. This movie is twice as offensive as it took one of my favorite old school slashers and made a sequel that just spits on its memory. This thing is about as bad as anything I've ever seen, and if it were not on the flip side of my Silent Night, Deadly Night part 1 DVD, I'd burn it or ritually sacrifice it, or something... God help us.
  • August 8, 2008
    one of the best comedies ever!
    the best part is that it was completely unintentional.
    And I have to say it:.....GARBAGE DAY!!!!
  • February 25, 2008
    What a terrible movie. Did you like the original? Then you'll like this because about half of this movie is flashbacks from the original! And the parts that weren't flashbacks were terrible. "Garbage Day!"
  • February 5, 2008
    The funniest sequal ever made.The first 40 minutes are highlights from the first movie,then it moves onto a crazy tribute to the first."Its Garbage DAY!!!"
  • October 2, 2007
    Wow. I might live the rest of my life and never see a performance as over-the-top as the one Eric Freeman gives in this film. He is so bad that his performance alone almost makes this film worth seeing! It reaches a kind of bad zenith, an imitation of human life so horribly re... read morendered that it achieves an almost grand state. What I mean is this: he's sooo bad that he's absolutely brilliant. And the performance is the ONLY reason to see this film. The first forty minutes consist almost entirely of flashbacks to the original "Silent Night, Deadly Night" while Freeman, as Ricky (brother of the killer in the first flick) relates his unhappy childhood to a head shrinker (James Newman -- also bad but not in a good way.) Once we see Ricky really freaking out and get to the new footage, it gets better but, really, forty minutes of flashbacks?! What were they thinking?! For fans of extraordinarily bad acting only...
  • May 29, 2007
    Eric Freeman's performance sent chills down my spine. The way he descended into madness and eventually took it out on innocent citizens going about the day in their quiet little suburb. Just look at his face and hear his menacing laugh as he utters those infamous words while layi... read moreng waste to the unsuspecting man taking out his trash. Breathtaking!

Critic Reviews


Stefan Birgir Stefansson
March 11, 2008
Stefan Birgir Stefansson, sbs.is

inane

Scott Weinberg
April 3, 2005
Scott Weinberg, eFilmCritic.com

Not as good as the original ... and that one kinda stunk, too!

Eric Henderson
October 21, 2003
Eric Henderson, Slant Magazine

Though Part 2 isn't much more dignified than its predecessor, at the very least its isolated pleasures have a culminating effect. Full Review

October 22, 2002
Chicago Reader

Click to read the article Full Review

Critic ratings and reviews powered by RottenTomatoes.com

Fresh (60% or more critics rated the movie positively)

Rotten (59% or fewer critics rated the movie positively)

More Like This


Click a thumb to vote on that suggestion, or add your own suggestions.

  • Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation (Bugs)
    Silent Night, Deadly Night 4: Initiation (Bug... (100%)
  • The Dentist 2: Brace Yourself
    The Dentist 2: Brace Yourself (67%)
  • Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch Out! (Blind Terror)
    Silent Night, Deadly Night III: Better Watch ... (0%)
  • Santa's Slay
    Santa's Slay (50%)

Facts


    • Ricky: Garbage Day!

Silent Night, Dea... : Watch Free on TV


Silent Night, Deadly Night - Pt. 2 Trivia

Movie Quizzes


No quizzes for Silent Night, Deadly Night - Pt. 2. Want to create one?

Recent News


No recent headlines. Got one?

Recent Lists


Most Popular Skin


No skins yet. Interested in creating one?