This is a decent teen horror film that does a good job building suspense. It would be great for a teen scary movie sleep over. What has it on my horror movie playlist however is the house. I absolutely fell in love with the house in this babysitter being terrorized by a stranger in the phone flick. The house is spectacular and I actually dream about it...it's suspended staircase, the inner courtyard with birds...it's location private but near the water. Yes, it is all about the house and it keeps it on my list. Otherwise this is kind of a slow build suspense film.
349 Reviews
Mediocre Movie With a Less Than Mediocre Actress
courtneypedersen18 June 2019
The first time I saw this movie, I enjoyed it because it did put me on the edge of my seat. However, every time I've tried to watch it since, all I can focus on is how bad of an actress Camilla Belle is. She delivers no emotion with most of her lines and when she does manage to show a sliver of emotion, it's barely halfhearted and very awkward. My suggestion would be to watch it once and then forget about it.
More Generic PG-13 Horror
Rathko13 February 2006
I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.
The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.
The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.
Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.
The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.
The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.
Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.
This stranger shouldn't have called again.
Nightman854 March 2009
While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.
Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.
On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.
It's just another unimpressive remake.
* 1/2 out of ****
Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.
On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.
It's just another unimpressive remake.
* 1/2 out of ****
Just Hang Up...
allamericanpsycho216 February 2006
Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-
Man oh man, am I in the minority on this one!
coldstick23 May 2006
Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
wretchedly awful
malidog5 February 2006
I'm not even get creative with the review. it sucked.
The use of this amazing house, waste of time. It was a distraction by the director to give you something interesting or pretty to look at.
Camilla Belle has about as much charisma and screen presence as my last yeast infection.
Simon West's DGA card needs to be confiscated.
I hate whoever greenlit this.
I did not pay to see it. I snuck in.
Hollywood please stop.
Seriously, no more garbage.
The use of this amazing house, waste of time. It was a distraction by the director to give you something interesting or pretty to look at.
Camilla Belle has about as much charisma and screen presence as my last yeast infection.
Simon West's DGA card needs to be confiscated.
I hate whoever greenlit this.
I did not pay to see it. I snuck in.
Hollywood please stop.
Seriously, no more garbage.
Stranger than reality
kosmasp26 April 2007
I haven't seen the original (I thought it was a short, but IMDb stats the running time of the 1979 movie at 97 minutes), but the concept worked better back then. I don't mean that it's not scary getting ... scary phone calls! It just doesn't work that well with the technology nowadays (and one of the "major" scares or revelations is just plain stupid)!
That's not to say that this movie is a complete mess. You have great production values and teenagers will surely get excited about this movie. But there is not enough scare/story to keep you on your toes or that justifies the running time! So while it's nice to watch, there is not much to it!
That's not to say that this movie is a complete mess. You have great production values and teenagers will surely get excited about this movie. But there is not enough scare/story to keep you on your toes or that justifies the running time! So while it's nice to watch, there is not much to it!
Simplistic cinematic nightmare
rivertam265 July 2020
I know alot of people don't care for this film but I think it's one of the best remakes in my opinion. Let's face aside from the first 20 minutes the original was pretty unwatchable it was followed by a Superior showtime sequel and now remade into it's best form. Taking the originals opening and stretching it out for 90 minutes makes for a simplistic, edge of your seat, achingly suspenseful nightmare. Similar to Halloween in its form and ambitions. Camilla Belle is awesome as the young babysitter forced to work at a gorgeous house in the middle of nowhere to pay for her cell phone bill. Upon arriving she's told the children are asleep but as the night goes on there are strange occurrences and creepy phone calls with the voice of a disturbing Lance Henriksen. It all leads up to a mostly satisfactory finale as the killer and Jill have a face off. The movie is directed stylishly with gorgeous, immersive cinematography and a solid lead performance from Camilla Belle.
Budget: $15M Box Office: $67M
8.5/10
Budget: $15M Box Office: $67M
8.5/10
A little bit better than mediocre.
helencmm18 June 2019
A suspenseful thriller that does not keep you still until 20-25 minutes in the film. At first, I think that it was building tension. But the "action" was not that intense until the last 15 minutes I guess.
I want to mention that I watched this film about 5 times, of whom the first time was when I was a lot younger than now.
Back then, I really liked the film. It was intense for my then standards and creepy as well, because I could imagine how scary could be If I would live a similar situation. It really touched my naïve psychology.
Now, being a little bit older, and of course watching it for the fifth time, I can tell for sure that it's a little bit boring. This argument is not fair, because since I've watched it so many times, I knew every detail of the film, so definitely it wouldn't surprise me.
I also want to mention that this is a remake of a 1970s film that I've not watched yet, so obviously I can not compare these two films.
(+) Pros
*Very beautiful photography and directing.
*The house was big, isolated and lost in the mist. Absolutely perfect for these type of films, although it can be some times a little bit cliché.
*The protagonist was not perfect, but cute.
*The reveal 20 minutes before the ending, at least the first time I watched this, was very cool and scary as well and since I haven't been watching horror films back then, it wasn't predictable to me at least.
Note: By today's standards, and with all the horror films that keep releasing one after another, maybe for a person that has not watched the film, can be again predictable. I'm not sure anyways.
*Although it's a remake and its plot isn't original (there is no parthenogenesis in art), I personally like these type of films. When it has to do with a stalker that suffer from psychological problems, and harrasses a girl. Very typical plot, but still, I'm into it.
*I like that this story actually, with the babysitter, is an urban legend, and it is portrayed pretty good.
*I liked the scene in the greenhouse. Maybe the second most intense scene in the whole film.
*I personally liked the fact that there wasn't so much talking. I mean, of course there is talking, but I enjoyed more the silent scenes. It gave an alternative creepy tone.
(-) Cons
*I would prefer to not see the face of the killer.
*I think that the part with protagonist's friend was a little bit unnecessary. I know that there was a background, but the conclusion was not important I think. I feel that they just wanted to put something extra. This is not neccessarily bad, but I was kinda thinking of it. I do not consider it bad, technically.
*In the beginning the flow of the plot was very slow, and I had in my mind that "It builds tension". In reality, the tension would come and go.
*There were a lot of jump scares that made on purpose. They were very cliché. The one with fire, the one with music, the one with mannequin... they were very basic jump scares, that they felt that they had to put them into the film, so it could be labelled "horror" by force. Basically, there wasn't creativity...
*Conclusion*
To be honest, it's not a bad film, and I feel that it is very misunderstood. I think that my rating and my review are basically of my thoughts now. Good or not, I've watched it a lot of times, like I cited, so there wasn't surprise to me. If I would watch today the film for the first time, it could get a 7/10. I personally recommend it, because it's one of my childhood horror films since I'm millenial.
I want to mention that I watched this film about 5 times, of whom the first time was when I was a lot younger than now.
Back then, I really liked the film. It was intense for my then standards and creepy as well, because I could imagine how scary could be If I would live a similar situation. It really touched my naïve psychology.
Now, being a little bit older, and of course watching it for the fifth time, I can tell for sure that it's a little bit boring. This argument is not fair, because since I've watched it so many times, I knew every detail of the film, so definitely it wouldn't surprise me.
I also want to mention that this is a remake of a 1970s film that I've not watched yet, so obviously I can not compare these two films.
(+) Pros
*Very beautiful photography and directing.
*The house was big, isolated and lost in the mist. Absolutely perfect for these type of films, although it can be some times a little bit cliché.
*The protagonist was not perfect, but cute.
*The reveal 20 minutes before the ending, at least the first time I watched this, was very cool and scary as well and since I haven't been watching horror films back then, it wasn't predictable to me at least.
Note: By today's standards, and with all the horror films that keep releasing one after another, maybe for a person that has not watched the film, can be again predictable. I'm not sure anyways.
*Although it's a remake and its plot isn't original (there is no parthenogenesis in art), I personally like these type of films. When it has to do with a stalker that suffer from psychological problems, and harrasses a girl. Very typical plot, but still, I'm into it.
*I like that this story actually, with the babysitter, is an urban legend, and it is portrayed pretty good.
*I liked the scene in the greenhouse. Maybe the second most intense scene in the whole film.
*I personally liked the fact that there wasn't so much talking. I mean, of course there is talking, but I enjoyed more the silent scenes. It gave an alternative creepy tone.
(-) Cons
*I would prefer to not see the face of the killer.
*I think that the part with protagonist's friend was a little bit unnecessary. I know that there was a background, but the conclusion was not important I think. I feel that they just wanted to put something extra. This is not neccessarily bad, but I was kinda thinking of it. I do not consider it bad, technically.
*In the beginning the flow of the plot was very slow, and I had in my mind that "It builds tension". In reality, the tension would come and go.
*There were a lot of jump scares that made on purpose. They were very cliché. The one with fire, the one with music, the one with mannequin... they were very basic jump scares, that they felt that they had to put them into the film, so it could be labelled "horror" by force. Basically, there wasn't creativity...
*Conclusion*
To be honest, it's not a bad film, and I feel that it is very misunderstood. I think that my rating and my review are basically of my thoughts now. Good or not, I've watched it a lot of times, like I cited, so there wasn't surprise to me. If I would watch today the film for the first time, it could get a 7/10. I personally recommend it, because it's one of my childhood horror films since I'm millenial.
One of the best thrillers of the decade!
Red_Identity16 April 2009
I say this with strong passion- When A Stranger Calls (2006) is easily one of the best thrillers of recent years. The film is panned by most critics, and even though I agree with some of their points, I strongly disagree that this is a horrible film. It is not, by any means. I found the writing of the film to be solid for a PG-13 Horror film. It does have it's share of clichés among the high school drama, but I found that none of the storyline with the babysitter in the house to be clichéd. For once, the main female character was not doing stupid things. Everything she did was pretty believable, and she did what anyone would do in that situation. Some might disagree with that statement, but honestly, put yourself in the situation, what could you do? A lot of the criticism also comes from the film being too slow and nothing happening. It is true that it takes action very slow, but that is the main reason why it worked so well. The suspense, the atmosphere the house and the objects gave was so creepy. It brought back those thoughts about how scary anything can be when you are alone in the house. That is an aspect I also very much liked. The director, Simon West should get some respect for making a film that does not rely on gore or chase sequences, but instead on the atmosphere. His direction was superb to me. If, by definition by many, it was the screenplay that had problems(even thought I thought was good) then Simon West should get credit. I did not think the director of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider would be able to make such a slow, focused film. The film is also powerfully carried by Camilla Belle, who is an underrated talent. I thought her subtleness, her un-over-the-top acting was great. The cinematography in the film was beautiful, and another aspect that should get credit. The film was very handsomely done, and is very elegant in it's structure, pose, atmosphere, and set designs. I very much liked the actual 'stranger'. He was very normal, but also a very psychotic and creepy human being.
When A Stranger Calls (2006) is probably the most underrated thriller I have ever seen. It's criticism is not well deserved at all. I found it engaging, suspenseful, clever, and shocking. If you do not like it, all right, but do not diss those who did. Credit should be deserved where it belongs, and it is not like everything in the film did not work. I very much liked When A Stranger Calls, and one of my favorite thrillers in recent years
When A Stranger Calls (2006) is probably the most underrated thriller I have ever seen. It's criticism is not well deserved at all. I found it engaging, suspenseful, clever, and shocking. If you do not like it, all right, but do not diss those who did. Credit should be deserved where it belongs, and it is not like everything in the film did not work. I very much liked When A Stranger Calls, and one of my favorite thrillers in recent years
Weak Remake of a Scary Thriller Prefer the Original 1979 Version
claudio_carvalho15 September 2006
Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is babysitting two children in a fancy isolated house, when a stranger insists calling her in the phone. She decides to telephone to the police, to trace the phone call. When the officer on duty tells her that the call is being made from inside the house, Jill freaks out and tries to leave the place with the children.
The beginning of the 1979 "When a Stranger Calls" is one of the scariest and most realistic thrillers I have ever seen. The story is excellent, and the performances are stunning. In my opinion, the famous 'Scream' ripped-off the introduction of this film. This 2006 remake is watchable, but director Simon West spoiled an excellent story with a typical Saturday night broadcast predicable movie. The secret of the original film was the claustrophobic environment associated to a realistic plot. The option of this director was to use a huge house, with people coming and going (or vanishing), breaking the tension. Camilla Belle has a pretty face but she is very weak in this dramatic role. Further, her character has the most unreasonable attitudes, for example leaving a house protected by a security system to move to the guest house, or calling the hidden children to escape with her. My advice: see Carol Kane in the original version. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Quando um Estranho Chama" ("When a Stranger Calls")
The beginning of the 1979 "When a Stranger Calls" is one of the scariest and most realistic thrillers I have ever seen. The story is excellent, and the performances are stunning. In my opinion, the famous 'Scream' ripped-off the introduction of this film. This 2006 remake is watchable, but director Simon West spoiled an excellent story with a typical Saturday night broadcast predicable movie. The secret of the original film was the claustrophobic environment associated to a realistic plot. The option of this director was to use a huge house, with people coming and going (or vanishing), breaking the tension. Camilla Belle has a pretty face but she is very weak in this dramatic role. Further, her character has the most unreasonable attitudes, for example leaving a house protected by a security system to move to the guest house, or calling the hidden children to escape with her. My advice: see Carol Kane in the original version. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Quando um Estranho Chama" ("When a Stranger Calls")
"Black Christmas" was FIRST
dcaruso19685 February 2006
This film is just another bad remake of a remake. The original film (concept and plot) was a scary little classic called "Black Christmas" and it was released back in 1974, five years before the original "When a Stranger Calls" came out and Black Christmas is STILL the best of them all - even to this day. And wouldn't you know it, they are remaking Black Christmas for a December 2006 release and will probably make a mess of it too. If you want to see what a true scary film is supposed to be, and one that doesn't explain every little detail but instead leaves much to your imagination, check out the original BEFORE the remake stinks up the theaters this Christmas. This remake of "When a Stranger Calls" was worse than the original and the original was bad enough.
Just as good as the original
redheadkz6 February 2006
Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.
Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!
This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.
All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!
Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!
This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.
All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!
utter disgrace.
Allendorf15 February 2006
One sentence to sum up everything: Don't Watch this Movie. If you're still curious, watch the trailer since it has everything you need to fully enjoy this movie.
After weeks of watching many movies in year 2006 - without doubt, this movie is one of the worst and is an utter disgrace to Hollywood. The movie has failed in all aspects but most profoundly in its lacking of the real story line. The story line is somehow a replica to very common horror movie (you got bad man out there and start running around with not clear idea: WHY? WHY? WHY?).
There are a lot of questions that the director should answer in this movie, or at least in the end of the movie - but in fact, nothing is answered. The whole content of the focus is simply running around like crazy while there is really no twist (utter boring).
Great disappointment...........
just don't watch!
After weeks of watching many movies in year 2006 - without doubt, this movie is one of the worst and is an utter disgrace to Hollywood. The movie has failed in all aspects but most profoundly in its lacking of the real story line. The story line is somehow a replica to very common horror movie (you got bad man out there and start running around with not clear idea: WHY? WHY? WHY?).
There are a lot of questions that the director should answer in this movie, or at least in the end of the movie - but in fact, nothing is answered. The whole content of the focus is simply running around like crazy while there is really no twist (utter boring).
Great disappointment...........
just don't watch!
Good stab at remake.
SirHenry23 March 2007
Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.
I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.
Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.
Overall a decent film.
I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.
Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.
Overall a decent film.
If they made Barfy-Face stickers, this movie'd get one.
ookamagook-14 February 2006
This movie was the most horrible cinematic puke-burp I've seen in a long while. For all the hype that it got, with MySpace and AIM throwing themselves down at it, it didn't live up to my expectations at all. The only reason I gave it 2 stars was that it was so bad, my friend and I laughed hysterically through the whole thing. The acting was HORRIBLE, and I think it took them about an hour to film, well, the first hour. Don't take small children to see this - they'll be dead asleep in the first 30 minutes. Make sure if you DO go see this monstrosity, bring the most cynical person you know. You'll need the comic relief so your brain stays at least somewhat solid.
When A Stranger Calls (2006):The Doc's Review
walken_on_sunshine29 November 2006
First and foremost i must say it is absolutely unfair to judge a remake on originality considering it is in fact a REMAKE however many overly critical critics don't take that into consideration well The Doc does.When A Stranger Calls succeeds as a horror film for one major reason...atmosphere.No it is not packed with jump scares or an everyday gore fest,it is psychological horror at it's finest.People will claim that last statement is absurd but allow me to explain how When A Stranger Calls is great psychological horror.Like i said this movie is all about atmosphere the eerie music,the dark visuals,the big house,the misty windows it really makes you feel uneasy and creeped out.The way the film is written is very clichéd and very tame for horror but the way it is acted out and portrayed on screen is magnificent.This is one of those horror films where you imagine yourself in the situation that the victim is in.Almost everyone has babysat at one point or another or been home alone so this is a very realistic situation.Also contributing to the realism is the fact that what's pursuing this victim isn't a ghost,goblin,or ghoul but another human being.A sixteen year old girl is alone in an enormous house being called every fifteen minutes by a perverted killer the very idea is disturbing.A remake's purpose is to take an old story and retell it in a way that appeals to a new generation or audience.When A Stranger Calls successfully does that and it also succeeds due to it's psychological way of making you feel like this could all happened to you.Overall this was a pleasant surprise.
Putrid
kylepond5 February 2006
I have never written a movie review before, so please excuse my lack of critical swagger. Given my utter lack of experience, it seems only natural to ask oneself- what is it about this particular movie that could have generated such a response in someone. This move certainly motivated me. I think that it largely has to do with paying twelve dollars (I bought two tickets- cheap theatre thankfully) to watch something that a grade school student could, and possibly did write.. It was the worst movie that I have ever seen in a theatre
and I went to a few Tom Greene films (Freddy Got Fingered). I won't discuss the plot, mainly because there wasn't one. The only entertaining element of my experience had to do with a teeny bopper's cell phone ringing at the same time as the phone in the movie- a novelty that Hollywood has already beaten to death. I have a hard time understanding how anybody could like this movie and I am entertained by almost every movie. This one was simply horrible.
i watched this film out of morbid curiosity....
xactlyme226 December 2006
and i really wanted to hate it. i so adored the original and found it offensive that it was being remade, that whole 'you cant mess with perfection' idea in my head. i came away from it with the distinct impression that the director had only the highest regard for the original film and total respect for the filmmaker. the new version tries to update the story for the 21st century and actually has some interesting takes on how modern technology can be used for scary elements. the smart house motion sensored lights added a nice touch as did caller id when its not who it says it is! although they tried too hard to bulk up the story with unnecessary side nonense and the timing was off, i give the man high marks for effort and his obvious attention to the integrity of the original work.
Nice House
pfogertyca4 June 2007
That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.
But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.
Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.
The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.
2 stars - both for the house.
But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.
Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.
The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.
2 stars - both for the house.
Well done! Not perfect! but fresh, and nice to see..
macenrae10 February 2006
With all the shoot em up, blood horror movies that have come our way in the last little while "Saw, Hostal, Saw 2, The Hills have eyes" Yes, they have their place, don't get me wrong! I went to see "When a stranger calls" with my buddy the other night! Why? Because it's a remake of the 1979 classic, which at the time was excellent and scared the you know what out of everyone! I didn't know what to expect. However I was pleasantly surprised! It was a film made of mood, atmosphere, suspense! Because remember people, what you can't see, what you think you see, what you can't hear, or what you think you hear, is far more scarier then what you do! If you love films with mood, creepiness, suspense and atmosphere!! You'll love it! It brought it back to the roots of the original Halloween. Thumbs up, a solid 8.5 out of 10 Remember folks, it's well done! not perfect! It's spooky, not bloody, It's creepy, not gory! It was nice to see a film come a long like this. Our minds have been conditioned and warped by the glitz and shock value of modern day horror movies, we forget, what's really scary.
About As Good As the First
lornastone18 January 2022
In this remake of the 1979 film, a teenage babysitter is brought to a secluded lake house only to be terrorized by a mysterious caller who keeps asking her to check the children.
This remake has some strong ideas and updates the classic story in several smart ways, dispatching of the original film's more character driven middle and extending the original's opening act to feature length. That does lead to a few pacing problems, but the film is well shot and the filmmakers make good use of the isolated lake house location to generate dread from every spooky shadow or open door.
This remake has some strong ideas and updates the classic story in several smart ways, dispatching of the original film's more character driven middle and extending the original's opening act to feature length. That does lead to a few pacing problems, but the film is well shot and the filmmakers make good use of the isolated lake house location to generate dread from every spooky shadow or open door.
One of the worst movies I Have ever seen
ddavidjm4 February 2006
I honestly couldn't believe that when I came home last night after seeing this god-awful movie that I found 7 reviews actually PRAISING THIS MOVIE.
Let me put it simply. This movie is terrible. The best actress in the entire movie is Rosa, the maid, and she has 1 line. Camille Bell ruined this movie. She just cannot act! I found myself feeling sorry for the director and Cinematographer because a lot of the shots in this movie were really nice. But the script was terrible, acting was terrible and the movie just fell on its face.
I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and some people might think that they may like the movie even though I hated it. But, honestly, this is not that kind of movie. It moved slowly, wasn't scary, was HORRIBLY (cant stress that enough) acted and was poorly written.
I also read some of the predictions about who the killer would be on the IMDb boards. If it had been any of those predicted people this movie MIGHT have been a little better. But the killer has NO connection to the characters what-so-ever. Quite simply, the writer and director do not even TRY to make you care about these people. Any expectation for this movie, no matter how weak, is too high.
All I can say now is that I'm glad some one else paid for my ticket because I would have walked out and asked for a refund. If you still want to see this movie, go ahead, that is your decision. I am normally not such a close minded and angry person, but this movie was just SO BAD. If you want to see When a Stranger Calls just rent/buy the original. Starting this new year off with a horrible horror movie like this makes me worried about the next 11 months of movies that we will see. All I can hope is that they don't sink to the rock bottom like this movie.
* out of 10
Let me put it simply. This movie is terrible. The best actress in the entire movie is Rosa, the maid, and she has 1 line. Camille Bell ruined this movie. She just cannot act! I found myself feeling sorry for the director and Cinematographer because a lot of the shots in this movie were really nice. But the script was terrible, acting was terrible and the movie just fell on its face.
I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and some people might think that they may like the movie even though I hated it. But, honestly, this is not that kind of movie. It moved slowly, wasn't scary, was HORRIBLY (cant stress that enough) acted and was poorly written.
I also read some of the predictions about who the killer would be on the IMDb boards. If it had been any of those predicted people this movie MIGHT have been a little better. But the killer has NO connection to the characters what-so-ever. Quite simply, the writer and director do not even TRY to make you care about these people. Any expectation for this movie, no matter how weak, is too high.
All I can say now is that I'm glad some one else paid for my ticket because I would have walked out and asked for a refund. If you still want to see this movie, go ahead, that is your decision. I am normally not such a close minded and angry person, but this movie was just SO BAD. If you want to see When a Stranger Calls just rent/buy the original. Starting this new year off with a horrible horror movie like this makes me worried about the next 11 months of movies that we will see. All I can hope is that they don't sink to the rock bottom like this movie.
* out of 10
Wow.. that was horribly lame
djrick275 February 2006
Quite honestly, I would have preferred that the person in charge of loading the movie at the theater would have inserted the "original version". This movie put me to sleep, (I guess having a rib-eye steak and Shrimp plus two Blue Moon Tall Beers from Chili's) prior to the movie didn't help my situation. But anyhow..this movie just plain bit the BIG one. I should have sneaked across to the other theaters and watched the previews. They were probably a bit more exciting. Keep the Original as originals and don't try to remake them. IT Doesn't WORK! Perhaps if we try to make a movie about phones, the director should stick to movies like Phone Booth or Cellular. Maybe the movie should have been titled "When a Stranger Annoys the Hell of the Audience"
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
