tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post611673450296152255..comments2024-01-20T07:41:08.072-08:00Comments on Scary Film Review: Silent Night Bloody Night ReviewSir Jorge Ordunahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12538889001050034217noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post-13756772539190465122012-03-13T14:41:58.879-07:002012-03-13T14:41:58.879-07:00I want to bugger Mary Woronov (as the bird was in ...I want to bugger Mary Woronov (as the bird was in 1961 when the bird was 18, not as the bird is now obviously)jervaise brooke hamsternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post-56603022149556264002010-10-26T12:01:15.069-07:002010-10-26T12:01:15.069-07:00Shameful review of a much beloved, underrated horr...Shameful review of a much beloved, underrated horror film from 1972, though only released by '74. All video copies are difficult to view, but DVD releases feature much improved picture quality. My REEL CLASSIC FILMS DVD runs 85 minutes and appears to be the original theatrical print. If you cannot read the opening credits, you are viewing a poor quality print, my version has everything clear and distinctive. The plot involves insanity, rape, incest, bloody mayhem perpetrated by an escaped maniac, and nothing is as it appears to be. The nominal hero is played by Patrick O'Neal, who takes top billing. John Carradine is totally wasted as a mute newspaper editor, but his presence gives every low budget filmmaker some stature. Walter Abel plays the town mayor, while cult favorite Mary Woronov is his admiittedly "pushy" daughter, who tags along until all is revealed in a mysterious diary, from which the eerie black and white flashbacks reveal the evil that never really died. All negative reviews of this film cite the poor picture quality, not due to the original film stock, but the numerous home video releases, and these reviewers also fail to adequately explain any plot details. I first saw this cult classic in the 70's, and agree with others who viewed it then that it remains a neglected gem.kevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post-51197752260257547622010-01-01T18:22:23.336-08:002010-01-01T18:22:23.336-08:00I'm afraid I disagree w/you, Sir Jorge. SNBN ...I'm afraid I disagree w/you, Sir Jorge. SNBN was quite influential, predating 1974's "Black Christmas," a slasher classic, and 1979's "When a Stranger Calls" and the killer-in-the-house-on-phone schtick by nearly a decade, and was first in the graphic blood and gore dept and killer's point-of-view shots, too. The film has been treated badly, and it sounds as if you might have seen a bad print. They are everywhere, and a true uncut print may no longer exist. A guy had a Website devoted to SNBN before he found religion, and he listed all the different VHS releasing co's that had different versions. One VHS print I saw was missing a very bloodthirsty bedroom scene (I saw this in a trailer as a kid and had nightmares for years). Other scenes seem to have been cut badly. I don't remember the version shown on YouTube, but much of the violence seems to have been cut. The movie seems to have been a precursor for "Friday the 13th" and its ilk, but you'd hardly know it as it's pretty anemic! I could explain the plot if you're unsure of it. I just saw it on DVD about a year ago, and it was pretty good. From your review you sound pretty young (I'm 42, and I guess you're 30 or younger). That's not a bad thing! Keep in mind that SNBN was typical of horror movies of its day (low budget, not-so-great lighting). Horror movies didn't have the big budgets of today, the pacing of films was slower, and movies weren't as graphic. These movies made oodles of money. Ever see the original "Last House on the Left"? It played for 15 years and made $55M (it cost $90K to make). The studios took notice and made big budgeted movies that used to play drive-ins and today we have "Die Hard" and the like and no one remembers how they started.<br /><br />SNBN was made for drive-ins, not art houses, and it really did tie up its loose ends. The sepia imagery was for events that had happened in the past. Keep in mind that movies like this were made by filmmakers w/o much money, and the sepia imagery kept costs down and enabled them to tell their story....<br /><br />I'd be happy to fill you in on the plot details if you email me. I won't spam you I promise!<br /><br />Glenn Allen (NJ, U.S.)<br />apchat@hotmail.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post-46422356028468039972009-04-12T09:19:00.000-07:002009-04-12T09:19:00.000-07:00Well, everyone has an opinion, that's for sure.Well, everyone has an opinion, that's for sure.Sir Jorge Ordunahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12538889001050034217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post-55715414333056046942009-04-12T05:01:00.000-07:002009-04-12T05:01:00.000-07:00your overall anylisis of this movie could not be f...your overall anylisis of this movie could not be further from the truth- this movie is a perfect movie to watch on a rainy nights, a true horror films lovers gem- and it's a hidden gem, 5x's better than the shit they put out from 74' till now, U can watch the rest of that crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-83981725717101408.post-20582703688415006212008-12-30T13:06:00.000-08:002008-12-30T13:06:00.000-08:00Well said Jorge ~ I definitely have to agree with ...Well said Jorge ~ I definitely have to agree with you on this one!thebonebreakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11304800728906814919noreply@blogger.com