Silent Night Deadly Night 4: Initiation

tn_sndn4I’ve enjoyed the sleazy, creepy original SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT several times over the years, and the hilariously awful half sequel/half recap PART 2 almost as many times, and tried to convince myself that Monte Hellman’s PART 3 was kinda interesting two or three times. But I never got around to the straight to video parts 4 and 5. UNTIL NOW.

You know what, that was overdramatic probly. But still. This is the first time I watched them. Here are my findings.

Part 1 was about this abused orphan that gets drunk and goes on a murder spree dressed as Santa. Part 2 was about his little brother grown up, having 45 minutes worth of flashbacks of stuff that happened when he was a baby and then going on his own jolly murder spree. Part 3 I think was still about the brother but now played by Bill Moseley with a glass dome on his head exposing his brain and if I remember right he flips out whenever he sees the color red.

mp_sndn4With part 4 they abandon that bloodline and premise and sort of do what John Carpenter tried to do with HALLOWEEN III, turning it into a holiday themed horror anthology series. I think that idea works better with this series since 1) not many people really give too much of a shit about the original storyline or remember the name of the killer Santa so they’re not gonna be that disappointed that he’s not in this and 2) because Christmas is not a horror-related holiday like Halloween it sort of lends itself to a wider variety of novel horror gimmicks, I think.

This one in my opinion sort of cheats though by not really being about Christmas. Yeah, it climaxes on Christmas Eve, there’s a Christmas party, there are decorations around. But the actual storyline doesn’t have anything to do with Christmas. In fact, the heroine is Jewish and doesn’t celebrate Christmas. I could pretty much guarantee this was a script that was re-written to take place at Christmas when they found out they could use SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT’s good name to sell it. So that keeps it from being a perennial classic I would want to dig out every year like BAD SANTA or the Johnny Cash Christmas specials.

And I got other problems with it that I’ll get into, but I do have to give it credit for being a weird movie. It doesn’t go where I expected it to, has some imaginatively creepy shit that happens in it and even though I kinda got a problem with the subtext I gotta acknowledge that I find it interesting to discuss and that it did make me uncomfortable, and those are both positive things for a horror movie and not common in part 4s.

The director is Brian Yuzna (SOCIETY, BRIDE OF REANIMATOR, story credit on HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS). The story on this is credited to a bunch of people but one of them is Richard Gladstein, who began his executive producing career with part 3 and must’ve used his Monte Hellman connection to get in on RESERVOIR DOGS and later PULP FICTION and JACKIE BROWN. Not bad.

Somebody named Neith Hunter plays Kim, the calendar and classified ads editor at an L.A. alternatively weekly called The Eye. They must see themselves as lefties ’cause they got a bunch of  anti-Reagan Administration Robbie Conal posters in their offices, but they also act like a bunch of sexist pigs. Her editor (PHANTASM‘s Reggie Bannister), her reporter boyfriend Hank (Tommy Hinkley) and the other boys in the office know she wants to try her hand at reporting with a story about a weird suicide that happened in town. Instead of saying “You go, girl!” they assign her story idea to Hank, tell her to get them coffee and shut a door in her face.

Well, she’s not gonna take it anymore, so she goes rogue to write the story anyway. In the opening scene we saw this poor woman scream and fall off a building while on fire, and Kim goes to the building during the daylight, talks to a weird butcher (Glen Chin) and book store owner Fima (Maud Adams) that were around when it happened. Even if you don’t suspect that the book store lady had something to do with it I think you’ll wonder about how much she touches Kim and why she invites her to a picnic. I mean maybe it’s just good customer service, I don’t know.

A quick glance of wikipedia and imdb message boards finds no discussion of this, but the movie couldn’t be much more obvious about being about lesbianism. Kim gets angry at her boyfriend, she asks her co-worker played by Allyce Beasley (Ms. DiPesto from Moonlighting) why she needs men anyway, she strikes off on her own. Then this lady Fima protects her from a creepy homeless guy (Clint Howard) touching her butt, shakes her hand and won’t let go, stands uncomfortably close, offers snacks and a free book, invites her to a picnic. When she does show up for the picnic they hug, there is cheek kissing, there is hovering as if they’re gonna kiss. Fima gives her drugged wine that makes her roll on the picnic blanket sensually and then Fima does finally kiss her when she seems to be unconscious. Later, among creepy hallucinations about giant bugs and evil faces in the walls she also sees a glimpse of lesbian porn.

These are all women who hate men and love Kim. The titelistical Initiation is not just into a cult or a book club in my opinion. Let’s just say it’s into a gang you may know from THE WARRIORS called The Lizzies. She’s curious but she lives to regret it. Instead of hot sex she gets slimy bugs and Clint Howard.

You want to know how terrifying this movie is? There’s a part where the heroine is drugged, surrounded by old ladies who are rubbing oil on Clint Howard, who is wearing a mask with a long dick for a nose and who proceeds to rape her, it seems like. (But not with the nose – that might be the weirdest part.) At the climax they squeeze giant millipedes to squirt slime onto her face. But more of a clear gel than a jizz type of look.

I swear, this seems like a propaganda movie designed to scare the shit out of your daughters before they experiment with girls. After this they’ll associate pussy with weird rituals, insects and Ron Howard’s brother. Shirtless and oiled. Get that deep enough in their subconscious and they’ll go running back to that boyfriend whether it’s good for ’em or not.

There’s a whole thing about Kim meeting her boyfriend’s parents and the dad gives her a bunch of sexist shit. He doesn’t think she should be an investigative reporter either, because “Well, I think a woman’s place is in the home, raising a family.” When they cut to her reaction to that line the boyfriend’s little brother’s expression made me laugh:

Sympathetic and embarrassed. He’s smart enough to know his dad’s a huge asshole. Alot of good it does him though – Kim later ends up kidnapping him and bringing him to the cult to help save her own ass. I mean, she rescues him, but in my opinion it’s not responsible adult behavior to endanger a child with a cult.

That’s kind of what makes this movie interesting, though. It can be refreshing when the protagonists can’t always be counted on to be sane. Same with the lesbian subtext. I think it’s unintentionally kind of homophobic but it also seems like an honest look into Yuzna’s psyche, an unfiltered look at his fears. It’s uncomfortable in a good way.

There’s also some great “surrealistic visual design and effects” (as the credits call it) by Screaming Mad George. The giant bug stuff is obvious but there’s some genuinely creepy weirdness where her fingers get long and tangled together, her legs grow together, things like that. And there are a bunch of shots where objects line up to look like a face, and I was impressed that they didn’t make it too obvious, they trusted in subtlety. Maybe the idea of a creepy spiral in a plate of spaghetti was too far on the silly side, but oh well. Points for trying.

I don’t know how good I can claim this is but it’s definitely way better and more interesting than I expected all these years that I avoided watching it. Does that count as a Christmas miracle? I think it does. God bless us, every one.

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 at 12:42 am and is filed under Horror, Reviews. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

17 Responses to “Silent Night Deadly Night 4: Initiation”

  1. “After this they’ll associate pussy with weird rituals, insects and Ron Howard’s brother. Shirtless and oiled.”

    oh man, that made me laugh

    and shockingly enough I now really want to see this, who would have thought that after part 2 with the infamous GARBAGE DAY part 4 would actually be worth watching?

  2. I sort of remember this one. It’s pretty much like all of Yuzna’s movies: Cool concept, decent execution, but missing some vital umph that makes it really memorable. I don’t think he ever really came out of Stuart Gordon’s shadow.

    With the exception of the unrated cut of RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3. That’s one of the better zombie S&M love stories out there, in my opinion.

  3. When I think of Brian Yuzna, I think of THE DENTIST and then my teeth start to hurt…

  4. As far as my memory goes, THE DENTIST is a movie with only one scene. But man, what a scene.

  5. Yuzna was and will always be the poor man’s Stuart Gordon, but that doesn’t mean that RotLD3, REANIMATOR 2, the DENTIST movies and (especially) SOCIETY aren’t worthwhile, even pretty good for what they are (pretty direct carbon copies of a much better filmmaker’s work). It’s a shame though that he hasn’t done anything half decent in 10 years or more. (FAUST and BENEATH STILL WATERS in particular are near-unwatchable in their badness).

    Actually, SOCIETY is pretty awesomely unique and disgusting and not quite as blatantly Gordon-esque. Too bad he never made more films in that vein.

  6. Has anyone else seen the fifth SNDN? I don’t remember much about it except that its called THE TOYMAKER and it stars Mickey Rooney. It’s as offputting as it sounds.

  7. Dan – Faust has this scene at least http://io9.com/351382/scariest-special-effect-ever-created-nsfw

    I’ve been wanting to see Society, it seems right up my alley, but it’s a pretty hard to find movie

  8. I saw SOCIETY because the Hollywood Video I used to work at like 8 years ago (which, of course, no longer exists) had a copy of it. I would love to see it again some time, but used copies are more than I’m willing to pay.

  9. There’s a used one on Amazon for $18.50 that’s part of a double feature with SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION, one of Tobe Hooper’s shittiest films that nonetheless features one of Brad Dourif’s craziest performances. So it might be worth it.

  10. Kinda funny that the double feature DVD is much cheaper than the one with just SOCIETY. Then again, I was able to get the great mind-fuck art horror masterpiece POSSESSION for much cheaper than the other used copies by buying the POSSESSION/SHOCK double feature DVD instead.

  11. The more I think about it, this one actually kinda sounds a bit like SOCIETY, so maybe Yuzna DID make other movies in that vein and I just haven’t seen them. I might need to track this one down. Of course, I never saw SNDN 2 or 3 (which I consider a major personal failing), which I know will make me feel inexplicably discouraged from seeing this one until I see those, even though it has nothing to do with them.

    I don’t know what it is about horror series, but I feel weird if I don’t watch them in order.

  12. Griff:

    Leprechaun 3 did a similar gag with a showgirl in Vegas. Yes, I knew that off the top of my head.

    Seriously though, Leprechaun 3 is the shit.

  13. Tawdry, I am indeed familiar with the scene you speak of in Leprechaun 3

    also, don’t forget the robot hooker

  14. I thought that WAS what happened to the Robot Hooker…or was she thrown out of the window? Or was that the ridiculously fake Leprechaun doll? Or both of them?

    Man, i need to rewatch Leprechaun 3, clearly.

  15. I ended up liking this one the least. I appreciate the ambition to do a DTV horror sequel about gender roles and sexuality, but it was just so slow and forced. I really like Neith and glad she appeared in the next one, but the script required her to do too much explaining what we already saw happening.

  16. Wow, my approach to commenting sure has changed in the last 7 years.

    However, I am proud to say that I now recall the events of Leprechaun 3 with more clarity, despite not watching it since before my previous comment.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>