Mark Waters
Bad Santa 2

What the hell. I mean. I can already imagine what your reactions might be. You’ll tell me, what's the point of reviewing a film like this? A film that doesn't have intellectual or philosophical content or that could lead to more or less relevant discussions, that lacks a noteworthy or particularly unique soundtrack, that doesn't have the hallmarks of a 'cult,' which it isn’t and will never become, not even in the future. Moreover, it’s a sequel, and we know that sequels are always worse than the 'original' film (and original). It wasn't even directed by the same talented director of the first film (i.e., Terry Zwigoff), which despite everything has at least become a kind of 'classic' among 'alternative' Christmas movies. It doesn't even benefit from the Coen brothers' production, which, I mean, at the time surely constituted a mark of guarantee. It's generally considered a mark of guarantee, especially for a film that, regardless of the genre, claims to have a certain black humor and noir tones.

'Bad Santa 2' is directed by Mark Waters (a rather eclectic director and perhaps suitable for the film in question) and does not benefit from the same production as the first ones, nor the same writers (here we have Shauna Cross, while previously it was Glenn Ficarra and John Requa who provided the story and screenplay). The film naturally still wants to be a sequel to the first 'chapter,' released in cinemas in what is now the distant 2003, and it revisits the themes and the same patterns. Of course, there's Billy Bob Thornton. Who once again plays the role of Willie T. Soke, as well as that of Santa Claus. There’s Tony Cox (aka Marcus Skidmore), the most famous dwarf in Hollywood (probably in the world). Brett Kelly is also there, aka the former chubby kid who could quite cynically be called 'slow-witted,' that is, Thurman Merman, who is now grown up, eighteen years old, and of course, works in a fast-food restaurant where he prepares sandwiches and continues to follow and be rejected by an increasingly cynical and desperately devastated 'Santa Claus.' And there are two or three new characters: there's a new 'sister' of Mrs. Claus, portrayed by the beautiful Christina Hendricks; there’s especially Sunny Soke (Kathy Bates), Willie’s mother, who would be the diabolical mind bringing back together the pair already seen in action in the first film and composed of Willie and Marcus.

So there are new settings to say. Indeed, the sequel is set in Chicago, Illinois, and will see the pair (now a trio) change their original plan and go from large shopping malls to attempting to rob a charity on Christmas Eve, thus representing an ideological extremization of their typical plan, which has already been experimented with other times with mixed successes in the past and as well known from the events narrated in the first film.

What’s the point of talking about this film. Since, after all, the content of the plot is mostly the same as the first 'Bad Santa.' The foundations are the same, the so-called 'prerequisites' see Willie completely broke and a victim of loneliness and alcoholism, in the grip of self-destructive processes, and Marcus, as small as he is attached to money and just out of jail, eager to redeem himself for the years spent inside and to get back on the scene with an important hit. Likewise, the ending could never be that different. It can't. Whether one wants to tell it or not, I'm not afraid of revealing something hidden and/or unpredictable. Simply, there wouldn’t be any need, there's no need to tell how things end at the end of the events narrated in the film, I have no intention of doing so. Essentially, from the beginning of the film we already know that things can only end in one possible way.

And this may be the central point, the one for which it is worth talking about this film, besides watching it if you like, and the thing that truly struck me much more than the viewing (repeated, of course) of the first 'chapter': the fact that whatever you (specifically Willie T. Soke) do, and whatever happens, things will always end up the same way. Practically a mess. And what better occasion can there be than Christmas, what better pretext for the representation and staging of a way of considering and looking at existence, which constitutes a form of pessimism that I believe is inherent in every human being's individuality and where obviously, it can neither find nor could ever find a solution alone. An answer. None, of course.

Completely overturning, and without any hidden morals or pretense of having some didactic note, there are none, this film like and more than the predecessor, simply aims to unmask what is the well-known and surely not unexplored hypocrisy of the Christmas holidays and its typical images and situations. Thus becoming a brutally cynical cinematic manifestation of reality. Something that objectively can be defined as a parody only up to a point and is made and appears extreme because the Christmas context is extreme, after all. Something that, frankly, I emphasize because it’s evident and without wanting to launch anti-religious or otherwise anti-Christmas campaigns in every possible sense. Why should I? I don't care anyway.

Let's face it, the plot here more than in the first film is just a pretext. The whole film revolves around the figure of Willie T. Soke, 'Bad Santa,' of course, an extraordinary Billy Bob Thornton, playing a part that may appear as extreme, borderline, grotesque, and which in some respects could also be considered funny, but which, in the end, is not funny in its manifest decadence. The broadening of the circle of main characters to include the mother obviously goes in this direction. There's nothing, not even a single moment in the film where one can be deluded into a redemption, a kind of family reconciliation: between mother and son there's only hate, anger. Worse. At some point, simply complete and total indifference. And that’s the strong, overpowering feeling this film conveys. That of a real indifference, which doesn't need to be demonstrated in an extreme way and which as such makes 'Bad Santa 2' a film that probably won't even make you laugh. Assuming it can make you laugh, if it succeeds. Because I acknowledge the view of those who might criticize it for being a vulgar and content-less comedy that’s not very innovative or entertaining.

Perhaps it is indeed. Nor does it pretend to be anything else. If you see it this way, in fact, you've perfectly grasped its real contents. Vulgar, lacking in content. Not funny. Practically: life. That you cling to desperate attempts to commit acts to save your soul and extreme, metaphorical 'innocence,' unpredictable, as represented by the character of Thurman Merman. Helping, doing something good for others as an extreme attempt to save your life, if you will, but then you wonder to what extent you do it for yourself, for him, or because you want to find a meaning in it. In the end, you don't know which of these three would be the worst on an ethical and moral level. What else to add? Oh yes. Well, I know I'm a little late, anyway, Merry Christmas to everyone. From the heart.