MovieChat Forums > Krampus (2015) Discussion > So terrible. It's like the film makers h...

So terrible. It's like the film makers had zero knowledge of Krampus.


I was especially disappointed in this film due to the fact that the co-writer/director is the same guy who wrote and directed Trick R' Treat, a gold standard of Halloween oriented films. I had high hopes.

This film reflects zero knowledge of the Krampus story. It's almost as if somebody hired people who had never even heard of Krampus, and asked them to write a script about "some evil creature that has something to do with Christmas", and forbade them to seek further knowledge before writing. Literally nothing in this movie has anything to do with Krampus, other than the name.

I will say this: If you're looking for a family friendly fake-horror Christmas movie where everybody lives happily ever after, this is for you. Then again, if that's what you're looking for, I'd probably just tell you to watch Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale. That one is actually GOOD.

reply

Okay, what were you expecting? I know the Krampus in this movie didn't go around whooping kids with birch branches(maybe he'll do that in the sequel), but he basically did what the mythical Krampus does, and that's giving out punishments to people who are naughty on Christmas.

reply

What movie did you watch? The ending is the reveal that all of them actually died and are damned to be Krampus's property for all eternity in a snow globe. I don't know if that's a "happy ending" to you, but if it is, you should really be evaluated. You'd have a pretty sick mind.

reply

I agree that this wasn't my idea of a Krampus movie. "Rare Exports" was my first exposure to the Krampus, and last Xmas we watched another worthwhile movie with a Kramus "A Christmas Horror Story".
For me this story was off-balance with too many creatures on a massive spree of destruction. The main character Max was not a naughty child, and if ripping his Santa letter and tossing it outside makes him naughty, it's a bit lame. Krampus doesn't harm adults, just children. Why no radio? How widespread is this destruction? And all the weird evil toys and gingerbread men was just odd. And the little cordless nail gun shooting out 8 penny nails was strange.
But we enjoyed it.

reply

Max was not a naughty child, and if ripping his Santa letter and tossing it outside makes him naughty, it's a bit lame.
Krampus in the film wanted to teach people to love one another. That was why he came. They did all wake up alive as if none of it happened at the end, but only after having been taught to love one another again. Krampus' gift is the memory of the night where they learned/remembered what is truly important.
Why no radio? How widespread is this destruction?
A cut scene shows that the only radio station still operating is running an automated emergency signal and the rest are just unmanned(presumably because a certain spirit is on the rampage.) So very widespread.
And all the weird evil toys and gingerbread men was just odd.
The tie-in comic shows that these are made up of the souls of those that could not find love in their hearts. They are taken to the underworld and remade to serve him and NOT returned like everyone else.
From a story angle, the toys are just more of Krampus' helpers and a perversion of holiday traditions.

reply

Well the Hell does it matter what the film's relation is to traditional/already-established Krampus stories?

Was your only interest in it that you wanted a dramatization if stories you were already familiar with?

reply

Michael Dougherty heavily researched Krampus before writing the script. This is just his interpretation of the character, just like everyone puts their own stamp on vampires, werewolves, or any type of creature from folklore, and there's nothing wrong with that.

"IMDB: Where Intelligent Film Discussion Goes To Die" - Scott 'The Foywonder' Foy; Dreadcentral.com

reply

Well if we are being accurate, a lot of the elements featured in this movie come from real mythology, it's just this version as told is not by any means a traditional configuration, which I doubt was ever Dougherty's intention.

One thing we have to also take into account, here is we are talking about folk characters, these have been spread out across so many areas told by so many people, there are so many variants we have knowledge of, and no doubt plenty more currently in the historical black hole.

Krampus is only one of many possible characters assigned as a companion to Saint Nicholas, excluding areas where there is a whole alternate character filling in for what we normally call Santa Claus. krampus himself varies from just being the bad cop to enslaved monster. There's so many ways to take the character, but I can admit some people may feel that even with a Krampus movie surge we don't have much of his more traditional identity on film....but who's to say it'll stay that way?

I think the movie was fine, but like a said a lot of the parts come from myths they've just been arranged into a new configuration. They kept some of Krampus' goat parts with the horns and the hooves. But the whole drag down to the underworld and elf part seems to be more common to the Wild Hunt. He also has a sleigh that seems to be pulled by Yule Goats, which are more associated with the Finnish Joulupukki. A character that is very varied over time himself across the Scandinavian and Pagan ideals. The mask Krampus wears here is also clearly trying to invoke an evil-Santa image.

The evil toys are clearly a little more modern with the exception of naming the angel Perchta. Another character who sometimes accompanied Santa.

Overall I think the film weaved a cool looking mythology, but I can see how some might have not wanting so much jigsaw puzzling.

Communities left for being too closeminded: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum, Toonzone

reply