59 reviews
To get a movie made is not an easy thing to do, let alone get it distributed. Many things could have been done better but knowing the situation it's amazing this was made in the time it was. With the small amount of money they had to make it with. There was the Actor's strike at the time the movie was made. As well as an all too familiar lack of gas situation going on at the same time. So lighten up, it was a hoot if you like the kind of scary movie that has an edge to it, you will get a kick out of it. Break through film that used real locations rather than studio sets. First film to use the hand held camera work, and it was great in that genre. Many films followed using the hand held camera, so this is to the director's credit. You just have to love this kind of creepy, nasty horror film to get through it.
- morrison-dylan-fan
- Oct 17, 2013
- Permalink
Snickering Vietnam vet Kirk Smith (Nicholas Worth) is one hell of a sicko: for a living, he shoots obscene pornographic photos, and in his spare time, he strangles pretty young women BEFORE raping them. LA detectives Lt. Chris McCabe (James Westmoreland) and Sgt. Hatcher (Ben Frank) are hot on the maniac's heels, but can they catch him before he kills his latest target, radio psychologist Dr. Lindsay Gale (Flo Lawrence)?
With such a sleazy premise, Don't Answer The Phone looks set to be a classic slice of extremely offensive exploitation, but with director Robert Hammer reluctant to go that extra mile to offend, the film falls short of the high (or should that be low?) standards set by his contemporary William Lustig, whose similarly themed film, Maniac, goes all out to shock the viewer.
Worth's character, Kirk Smith, is an undeniably repugnant fellow, and what he gets up to certainly ain't nice, but Hammer's approach to his patently sensationalist material is surprisingly cautious: whilst he doesn't mind showing the audience a little nudity (for example, all of the victims have their tops torn off before being choked to death), he doesn't quite seem to possess the cojonas necessary to present his sex and violence in the no-nonsense manner the genre demands.
Instead, his characters simply fill us in on the salacious details through conversation: a psychic gives a graphic account of the murder and rape of one girl, offering lurid tidbits of info about Kirk's modus operandi, and several characters pass comment on the particularly explicit nature of his photography. At the risk of sounding like a dangerous psycho myself, I ask 'Where's the really good stuff?'. A few throttlings and some tits only qualify this as exploitation lite!
To be fair, Don't Answer The Phone does manage to deliver a couple of scenes that almost make the grade—Kirk strangles a junkie hooker whilst she is live on air with Dr. Gale, and one topless victim is subjected to scalding by melted candle wax— but with too many other scenes pulling their punches, this film is most likely going to disappoint fans of degenerate cinema.
5.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 6 for IMDb.
With such a sleazy premise, Don't Answer The Phone looks set to be a classic slice of extremely offensive exploitation, but with director Robert Hammer reluctant to go that extra mile to offend, the film falls short of the high (or should that be low?) standards set by his contemporary William Lustig, whose similarly themed film, Maniac, goes all out to shock the viewer.
Worth's character, Kirk Smith, is an undeniably repugnant fellow, and what he gets up to certainly ain't nice, but Hammer's approach to his patently sensationalist material is surprisingly cautious: whilst he doesn't mind showing the audience a little nudity (for example, all of the victims have their tops torn off before being choked to death), he doesn't quite seem to possess the cojonas necessary to present his sex and violence in the no-nonsense manner the genre demands.
Instead, his characters simply fill us in on the salacious details through conversation: a psychic gives a graphic account of the murder and rape of one girl, offering lurid tidbits of info about Kirk's modus operandi, and several characters pass comment on the particularly explicit nature of his photography. At the risk of sounding like a dangerous psycho myself, I ask 'Where's the really good stuff?'. A few throttlings and some tits only qualify this as exploitation lite!
To be fair, Don't Answer The Phone does manage to deliver a couple of scenes that almost make the grade—Kirk strangles a junkie hooker whilst she is live on air with Dr. Gale, and one topless victim is subjected to scalding by melted candle wax— but with too many other scenes pulling their punches, this film is most likely going to disappoint fans of degenerate cinema.
5.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 6 for IMDb.
- BA_Harrison
- Jul 26, 2009
- Permalink
- Krug Stillo
- May 31, 2003
- Permalink
An ugly, ugly film about a psycho who goes around raping and strangling random women. There's a good central performance by Nicholas Worth as the psycho, but the film drags with no tension or suspense whatsoever. It's just an endless series of attack scenes with no style and nothing to say.
- michellegriffin-04989
- Jul 13, 2020
- Permalink
Don't Answer the Phone is yet another film from the late 70s and early 80s about a psychotic, demented, socially awkward killer who brutalizes women because of his "problems" - whatever those problems might be. This time around we have a muscular, fat Vietnam vet who was never good enough for his father butcher pretty girls just after they have stripped from their little clothing. Nicolas Worth plays the wheezing, maniacal killer with a bizarre almost interesting quality. He is not a good actor yet is able to hold your attention throughout. I wish I could say something pleasant about the rest of the cast, but none of the rest are very competent. The police detectives who are looking for Worth - one which falls in love with the pretty radio psychiatrist that can shed light on the killer's identity - were particularly bad. The girls are pretty but the misogynistic flair devoted to their deaths is particularly degrading and unpleasant. The film is at least not overtly gory and had me interested until the end. The story was compelling enough and Worth is worth a look if nothing else.
- BaronBl00d
- Dec 18, 2005
- Permalink
Okay-at-best psycho on the loose pic is pretty standard fare with few if any surprises. James Westmoreland does a serviceable job in the lead as a composed detective hunting a certified nut-job who's strangling (and then some) vulnerable women and phoning in his conquests to a local psychiatrist's (Gerrish) radio programme.
Worth is hyper-maniacal in the antagonist role, his hulking appearance fulfilling the intimidation quotient well, whilst a few familiar faces (Haze, Frank et al) round out a capable cast. Contrary to other reviewer's remarks, I personally didn't have a problem with Westmoreland's performance nor did I think Worth was especially remarkable in his characterisation; they and the rest of the cast manage with some fairly drab dialogue padding out what is essentially, a paper thin plot (if you excised the pointless scene fillers, DATP would barely make theatrical length).
DATP just seems like a run of the mill slasher pic with all the typical elements, including nudity, sadism, nurse stalking, PTSD, some occasional light humour (check out the brothel scene which was a laugh) and every other cliché you've ever seen in films of the ilk. A pretty good example of where the title attracts attention that the film itself can't sustain. Very average.
Worth is hyper-maniacal in the antagonist role, his hulking appearance fulfilling the intimidation quotient well, whilst a few familiar faces (Haze, Frank et al) round out a capable cast. Contrary to other reviewer's remarks, I personally didn't have a problem with Westmoreland's performance nor did I think Worth was especially remarkable in his characterisation; they and the rest of the cast manage with some fairly drab dialogue padding out what is essentially, a paper thin plot (if you excised the pointless scene fillers, DATP would barely make theatrical length).
DATP just seems like a run of the mill slasher pic with all the typical elements, including nudity, sadism, nurse stalking, PTSD, some occasional light humour (check out the brothel scene which was a laugh) and every other cliché you've ever seen in films of the ilk. A pretty good example of where the title attracts attention that the film itself can't sustain. Very average.
- Chase_Witherspoon
- Oct 10, 2016
- Permalink
- thenodradioshow
- Jan 14, 2020
- Permalink
With the '07 passing of Nicholas Worth, we lost an actor whose work on Don't Answer the Phone (DATP) informed a generation of the dangerous psychological effects of war and the horrifying results of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in American troops.
Still as intense as when it was first released on the gritty 42nd street trash houses of the day, DATP, though dated in respects to its treatment of women and psychology, still delivers some hardcore death scenes, not to mention a "killer" (if not repetitive) soundtrack.
James Westmoreland (of "Undertaker" fame) leads a cast in what ultimately is the most scene stealing of his career (in that he has the most scenes, by number, than any other movie of his career). Here he is at his cheesy best.
In conclusion, the lesson of war's tragic effects continue to go unlearned by a society that will be host to many more young female victims, victims of cinema's PTSD wrath.
I weep for a better tomorrow but if our reality creates more cinema in the vein DATP, I welcome it with open arms.
Still as intense as when it was first released on the gritty 42nd street trash houses of the day, DATP, though dated in respects to its treatment of women and psychology, still delivers some hardcore death scenes, not to mention a "killer" (if not repetitive) soundtrack.
James Westmoreland (of "Undertaker" fame) leads a cast in what ultimately is the most scene stealing of his career (in that he has the most scenes, by number, than any other movie of his career). Here he is at his cheesy best.
In conclusion, the lesson of war's tragic effects continue to go unlearned by a society that will be host to many more young female victims, victims of cinema's PTSD wrath.
I weep for a better tomorrow but if our reality creates more cinema in the vein DATP, I welcome it with open arms.
- amityvillehighschool
- Mar 18, 2008
- Permalink
- Scarecrow-88
- Jun 27, 2008
- Permalink
This was obviously meant to be a standard late-70s total-waste-of-time movie, an excuse to show topless women squirming and thrashing while being strangled, but Nicholas Worth turns it into a must-see. Actors-in-training and stage-vocalists, especially, can learn from his vocal prowess and from the way he uses his size. He is a huge, hulking basso with the ability to near-totally relax his inhibitions, and he uses his entire range, from resonant, snarling low tones, through a thundering midrange up to a piercing, blubbering whimper at the very top which has to be heard to be believed. He should have been an opera-singer. He could have sung Wagner.
The women dress beautifully in late 1970s casual summer-wear, and they get undressed equally beautifully by Worth's character, after (sometimes before) he strangles them to death. (One of them is future PLAYBOY-centerfold Pamela Jean Bryant.) As the other reviewer said, James Westmoreland (Detective McCabe) and Flo Gerrish (Doctor Lindsay Gale) act extremely badly; however, Ben Frank (Detective Hatcher) delivers some very funny lines with excellent cheesy deadpan. Like when McCabe tells him that the strangler has stolen some of the victim's clothes, and he replies: "That's great! Now we got him on petty theft, as well as murder!" Also, Chuck Mitchell, one of the few actors even bulkier than Nicholas Worth, plays a small part as a porno publisher. (If Mitchell looks familiar, it's because he played the Warden in PENITENTIARY and the title character in PORKY'S.)
These folks have created a masterpiece in spite of all their best efforts to the contrary.
The women dress beautifully in late 1970s casual summer-wear, and they get undressed equally beautifully by Worth's character, after (sometimes before) he strangles them to death. (One of them is future PLAYBOY-centerfold Pamela Jean Bryant.) As the other reviewer said, James Westmoreland (Detective McCabe) and Flo Gerrish (Doctor Lindsay Gale) act extremely badly; however, Ben Frank (Detective Hatcher) delivers some very funny lines with excellent cheesy deadpan. Like when McCabe tells him that the strangler has stolen some of the victim's clothes, and he replies: "That's great! Now we got him on petty theft, as well as murder!" Also, Chuck Mitchell, one of the few actors even bulkier than Nicholas Worth, plays a small part as a porno publisher. (If Mitchell looks familiar, it's because he played the Warden in PENITENTIARY and the title character in PORKY'S.)
These folks have created a masterpiece in spite of all their best efforts to the contrary.
- ColonelPuntridge
- Jan 14, 2010
- Permalink
DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE! is a serial killer thriller that makes up for a lack of gore and bloodshed with a really sleazy atmosphere that gives it a low-down gritty feel. This is one of the most interesting films to be released by low budget purveyors Crown International Pictures, and it's the first one I've watched from the studio that has real power.
It's reasonable to expect DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE! to be a dud, because many of the elements in the film simply aren't very good. The plotting is haphazard and the police investigation stuff is really boring. The majority of the cast give stilted performances and the scripting is sub par too. The whole film has a scuzzy, on-the-street type look to it that makes it very much a product of its era.
The film has a single saving grace in the form of Nicholas Worth, who plays the killer. Worth was a long-time B-movie veteran and this is the performance of his career. His crazed maniac goes around slaughtering women while at the same time praying to the spirit of his stepfather and going off on incredibly entertaining spiels that were by all accounts ad-libbed by the actor. I've always liked Worth and his performance here is the stuff of greatness; sad, then, that due to the film's subject matter it is a role that remains unseen and unappreciated by most.
It's reasonable to expect DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE! to be a dud, because many of the elements in the film simply aren't very good. The plotting is haphazard and the police investigation stuff is really boring. The majority of the cast give stilted performances and the scripting is sub par too. The whole film has a scuzzy, on-the-street type look to it that makes it very much a product of its era.
The film has a single saving grace in the form of Nicholas Worth, who plays the killer. Worth was a long-time B-movie veteran and this is the performance of his career. His crazed maniac goes around slaughtering women while at the same time praying to the spirit of his stepfather and going off on incredibly entertaining spiels that were by all accounts ad-libbed by the actor. I've always liked Worth and his performance here is the stuff of greatness; sad, then, that due to the film's subject matter it is a role that remains unseen and unappreciated by most.
- Leofwine_draca
- Dec 16, 2015
- Permalink
I wasn't planning to dignify this film with a review, but when I saw that 1980's DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE was about to be rereleased on VHS and DVD, I felt compelled to speak out. For if there's any film that isn't begging for a rerelease, it's got to be this one. In a nutshell, this film's "plot" revolves around mentally deranged Vietnam veteran and porno photographer Kirk Smith (Nicholas Worth), who likes to ritualistically torture, rape, and strangle to death hapless young women. For some odd reason, he becomes obsessed with radio psychiatrist Dr. Lindsay Gale (Flo Gerrish), and he soon starts knocking off her patients until he comes to her.
Although it is classified as a horror film, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE should not be compared to FRIDAY THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN. There is no real suspense to speak of, few scares, and very little gore. Don't be fooled by the title: the classic slasher movie theme of phone stalking plays almost no role in the film. What this film is heavy on is misogyny and sexual sadism. For that reason, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE should be classed in with "horror" films such as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and NEVER PICK UP A STRANGER, films which unfairly discredited the horror genre as a whole with their emphasis on the torture and degradation of female characters.
Very rarely, a film without any redeeming qualities whatsoever comes along. This is one of them. The acting by all in this film is absolutely atrocious, with Gerrish particularly uninspiring as the movie's "heroine." As if the plot and acting weren't awful enough, this film is saddled with a horrendous, porno-grade score, which is well below average even for low-budget schlock like this. At the same time, this isn't a "so bad it's good" movie, because its nasty themes (torture, rape, misogyny) are just not things that should be laughed at. The only good thing that can come with this film's rerelease is that many more people will see it and give it the vote (1) that it deserves, so that it can join the list where it so rightfully belongs, the IMDb Bottom 100.
If you're looking for a much better executed film with similar themes, try 1981's EYES OF A STRANGER.
No * out of ****
Although it is classified as a horror film, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE should not be compared to FRIDAY THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN. There is no real suspense to speak of, few scares, and very little gore. Don't be fooled by the title: the classic slasher movie theme of phone stalking plays almost no role in the film. What this film is heavy on is misogyny and sexual sadism. For that reason, DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE should be classed in with "horror" films such as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE and NEVER PICK UP A STRANGER, films which unfairly discredited the horror genre as a whole with their emphasis on the torture and degradation of female characters.
Very rarely, a film without any redeeming qualities whatsoever comes along. This is one of them. The acting by all in this film is absolutely atrocious, with Gerrish particularly uninspiring as the movie's "heroine." As if the plot and acting weren't awful enough, this film is saddled with a horrendous, porno-grade score, which is well below average even for low-budget schlock like this. At the same time, this isn't a "so bad it's good" movie, because its nasty themes (torture, rape, misogyny) are just not things that should be laughed at. The only good thing that can come with this film's rerelease is that many more people will see it and give it the vote (1) that it deserves, so that it can join the list where it so rightfully belongs, the IMDb Bottom 100.
If you're looking for a much better executed film with similar themes, try 1981's EYES OF A STRANGER.
No * out of ****
Don't buy the DVD. It has been heavily cut. If you have previously seen this movie, the DVD will seriously disappoint you. Check your local video store for the original VHS tape if you want to your own copy of this film.
If you haven't seen this movie, rent it. It only appeals to a small group. It is standard fare of the late 70s to early 80's horror movies. Mindless killer terrorizes town (Hollywood). Police can't buy a clue.
If you haven't seen this movie, rent it. It only appeals to a small group. It is standard fare of the late 70s to early 80's horror movies. Mindless killer terrorizes town (Hollywood). Police can't buy a clue.
- poolandrews
- Oct 3, 2007
- Permalink
Maniac killer strangles women at random; two cops try to track him down. That's about it, as far as the "plot" is concerned. Usually, these movies at least make an attempt at dime-store "psychology" (the killer became this way because his mother used to lock him in the closet, that sort of thing). Here, we simply get a killer who talks to himself, grunts, whines, lifts weights and apparently wants to prove to his (nowhere to be seen in the movie) father that he "measures up". It's a career-killing role, and Nicholas Worth gives an appropriately career-killing performance in it. Totally unredeemable movie. (*)
- BandSAboutMovies
- Nov 26, 2019
- Permalink
- NickNameNotAllowed-2
- Oct 2, 2007
- Permalink
Not a very good movie at all. I watched it on DVD in Rhino's Horrible Horrors Vol. 2 box set, and I would have done well to note that they cut, or used a cut version of, this movie. It may have been Rhino, since they've even cut tame movies like Robot Monster. The murder scenes in this version are not terribly violent, and the only nudity I recall seeing were nude photos at the killer's apartment, a photo buyer's office, and a "massage parlor."
A killer, who we see in the first frames of the movie, barechested in front of a large crucifix, is strangling women. He uses panty hose with a coin put it in, which was never explained (and he also leaves it at home when he goes to his last victim's house, for some reason). He likes to call in to a radio psychologist, faking a latino accent and calling himself Ramon, complaining of a headache.
At least half of the movie seems devoted to the cops trying to learn who he is and stop him. They're not very interesting. The lead cop, credited as James Westmoreland, sounds a lot like one of the guys who dubs Italian zombie and giallo movies. If he is, that might help explain why he never did any movies after this one. Of course, this movie could have put an end to his career (although the killer is a prolific actor, still active today).
I would definitely say don't bother with the cut version of this movie. As to whether the uncut version would be much better, I don't know.
A killer, who we see in the first frames of the movie, barechested in front of a large crucifix, is strangling women. He uses panty hose with a coin put it in, which was never explained (and he also leaves it at home when he goes to his last victim's house, for some reason). He likes to call in to a radio psychologist, faking a latino accent and calling himself Ramon, complaining of a headache.
At least half of the movie seems devoted to the cops trying to learn who he is and stop him. They're not very interesting. The lead cop, credited as James Westmoreland, sounds a lot like one of the guys who dubs Italian zombie and giallo movies. If he is, that might help explain why he never did any movies after this one. Of course, this movie could have put an end to his career (although the killer is a prolific actor, still active today).
I would definitely say don't bother with the cut version of this movie. As to whether the uncut version would be much better, I don't know.
- Woodyanders
- Oct 11, 2006
- Permalink
You need to go into this movie with the right frame of mind. Mainly it's an exploitation movie about murdering women. Of course it's misogynist! What the hell were you expecting Thelma and Louise? That being said Don't Answer the Phone has everything you would expect of this early eighties sleazy slasher. Bad Acting. James Westmoreland is more wooden than a forest. Bad Dialogue. How about ending a movie with "Adios Creep!". Plenty of topless women. It's got that in spades my friend. What separates this movie from the rest is the totally gonzo performance by Nicholas Worth as Kirk Smith the Hollywood strangler. Whether calling in to the local talk show as the thick accented Ramone or his racist diatribe with his "father" Worth goes above and beyond portraying a deeply disturbed Vietnam vet that has some issues with women. Every scene with him is fun to watch especially at the end when he has his prize, Dr. Gale, tied up and pretends to repent and let her go. I actually believed him for a second. This is truly a once in a lifetime performance that should be viewed by any fan of the exploitation/grindhouse genre of films.
Awful horror film about a Vietnam veteran (Nicholas Worth) posing as a photographer who stalks Los Angeles by strangling (and sometimes raping) young women and taunting a radio psychologist (Flo Gerrish) afterwards. A detective (James Westmoreland) is obsessed with tracking this woman hater and bringing him to justice. Terrible acting by Worth and Westmoreland (he's certainly no Clint Eastwood), writing, directing and unpleasant violence towards women sinks this trash. Don't see this movie! My evaluation: (no stars).
- Michael_Pilkington
- Jun 1, 2002
- Permalink