User Reviews

What should have been a routine babysitting gig at a secluded lake house turns into a night of terror, as high school student Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) receives threatening phone calls from a sadistic stalker, while trying to stay one step ahead of him.

The first 20 minutes of the original film were pretty good but it was all downhill from there. The remake takes those first 20 minutes and stretches them into an 80 minute feature film. That's a good idea because its eliminating everything that made the original bad. However, if they wanted this film to work more effectively then they should have hired a better lead actress, better director, writer etc. There's no suspense, everything can be figured out long before it happens and it's a very dull film since not much happens. At least there isn't much to sit through since its less than 90 minutes.

If this premise were to work, then the lead actress has to give a realistic performance. Camilla Belle gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen and throughout the whole movie, she seemed to be reading her lines. You get a lead role in a Hollywood film that will be viewed by millions of people and you give no effort at all! Why did they hire this girl? Sure, she's pretty but she can't act at all yet I suppose this won't matter to the target audience who will most likely eat this film up. The rest of the cast is bland and forgettable especially the woman who plays the maid, Rosa. Even the stranger was lame and his lines on the phone were not effective at all.

This movie reminds me of last years disappointing horror film Boogeyman. That movie was a bunch of cheap scares and false alarms and When a Stranger Calls is pretty much the same. Jill enters a room because she hears a noise but its just a false alarm like a cat or the maid. This type of scene happens over and over again until finally after about 50 minutes, the stranger appears. He has to be one of the lamest killers ever. He carried no weapons and didn't seem to pose much of a threat. The ending is bad but it matches the rest of the film so it doesn't really matter. The film is directed by Simon West and he is really bad at building up suspense. He was using every cliché he could think of and the results weren't very good. The house was amazing and I'll give the film credit for that. It was an isolated house so it was pretty creepy but that's about the only good thing this film has to offer. In the end, if you're not a teenage girl then you should skip the movie. Rating 2/10

I liked this movie. I'm not a big horror movie buff so i couldn't comment on similarities between this and other movies of this genre, but i found this movie quite captivating. the story line, albeit a little obvious, had some genuinely scary/tense moments and the acting (particually of the lead female role) wasn't bad in anyway

Overall i'm a little surprised at the low rating this movie has gotten. I watch a lot of movies (working in a video store tends to help) and this really isn't as bad as people seem to think. I do have some criticism though. The final call from the cop was terrible, almost overacted, the dead girl in the bathroom looked liked she was having a little sleep (probably from the amount of tequila she mentioned she drank) and the children's reaction to what was happening instilled in me the hope that they were ultimately killed

hope this helps some people

This movie was terrible. The story line seemed quite interesting at first but still it turned out to be pretty bad. Jill (the horribly wooden Camilla Belle) goes over her cell phone minutes and is forced to babysit for a rich family who lives in a beautiful mansion in the middle of nowhere. It's the perfect job. Nice house to explore, children are asleep, fridge is stocked. Until she starts getting calls from a stranger asking "have you checked the children?". Of course you all know, the calls are coming from inside the house.

First of all, there was no twist ending. The stranger just ended up being some random serial killer, stalking and murdering young babysitters. The killer and the girl were such idiots. A pointless waste of time.

Second, this movie had plot holes the size of Texas. For example, when the police trace Jill's call and find out they are coming from inside the house, why did they not catch on and tell her that there is a serial killer? How did the blonde friend know where the house was? The blonde friend was killed outside, how did her body get in the bathroom of the house?

Camilla Belle is one of the worst actresses to ever grace the screen. She was just so bad it was unbelievable. Line after line was delivered without emotion and she had this dumb blank stare constantly on her face.

She's pretty though, and her all wet in the pool kept me from falling asleep.

1/10.

Now, I'm all for a good slasher flick, and I don't even mind the modern day ones that flooded the market since the success of Wes Craven's SCREAM in 1996, even though a lot of them are poor. Okay, so I usually wait until they show up on television rather than spend money to see them, but I'm the first person willing to give a film a chance despite negative reviews and the like. I was the perfect demographic for this film: I'm young, I haven't seen the original '70s movie on which this film is based, and I'm easily pleased when it comes to horror. Sadly, I was in for a shock: this is one of the all-time worst movies I've ever sat through, on a par with the similarly execrable BOOGEYMAN.

For starters, WHEN A STRANGER CALLS has NO story, no plot line. A girl spends a night babysitting, gets a few phone calls, then is chased by an unknown killer. The end. There's no set up, no characterisation – other than a few grating teen stereotypes – no motivation. Is that supposed to make the killer more frightening? It doesn't. You just end up not caring. One of the many problems with this film is British director Simon West, whose only other credit of note is the action flick CON AIR, about a million times better than this. West is the master of over-direction. His creepy music starts almost straight away, even when nothing remotely frightening or suspenseful is happening. Girl goes for a car ride – creepy music. Girl is given babysitting job – creepy music. Girl visits the john – creepy music. Okay, so I made the last one up, but you get the idea.

The film is jam packed with false scares to pad out the running time. It's in essence a one-room drama, with a few minor embellishments, so straight away you know that a professional is required to make things work. Heck, PHONE BOOTH is one of my favourites from the last few years. This movie is just boredom, boredom, boredom. Every false scare and cliché is present, from the jumping cat scene to characters suddenly appearing out of nowhere. The lighting is poor and the film has no suspense or atmosphere; a dull-witted script only serves to sink things further. Camilla Belle plays, badly, one of the most unappealing 'scream queen' characters I've ever witnessed, one of those ones you're praying will end up dead. The killer, played by Scot Tommy Flanagan, is supposed to be scary because his face is scarred. That's the only characterisation he gets – a scarred face and Michael Myers-type stance. The killer's telephone voice, played by Lance Henriksen (!) only has about two lines. Towards the end, the whole phone call thing is so overdone (really, the lead gets at least twenty or thirty calls) that I was shouting in anger each time they did it. In all, there's absolutely no point in watching this appalling movie unless you're looking for a cure for insomnia.

Oh, God, why? Why do they keep making crappy movies and trying to make them scary? Seriously, it's a POS. It's not scary or even interesting.

Let's see here. We have a dumb high school girl who is having guy problems and an inability to control her cell phone minutes. Added on top of this is the fact that her "best friend" kissed her boyfriend. Don't worry, it's a crappy subplot that is resolved by the friend's death (ohh...who didn't see that crap coming?) She is babysitting and spend about 10 minutes going "I wish I was rich like this. Look at these clothes, blah blah blah." Ugh, forget it, I'm just going to skip ahead. It's basically over an hour of "Hello?" *Heavy Breathing* "Hello?" *Hangs up* So just skip ahead to the ending. This is a POS. The maid and the best friend are killed off-screen and you really aren't scared or surprised by their death. The foreshadowing is beautiful, too. I don't think it's subtle enough.

Then the kids are hiding, BUT THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO HIDE. THE GIRL JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THE KILLER AND THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL THE KIDS COULD HAVE HEARD HER/KNOW THE TRUTH. HELL, THEY PUT PILLOWS IN THEIR BED TO SEEM LIKE THEY ARE ASLEEP AS THEY HID IN A FREAKIN' TRUNK. GOD I HATE THIS MOVIE.

Sorry, I just finished this film and I'm just roaring with anger. The ending was terrible.

"Durrrr...we sedated the killer after we caught him, going to put him in a hospital, and put 4 cops on him." "That won't be enough." I THINK 4 COPS WILL BE ENOUGH FOR A GENERIC KILLER. HE ISN'T JASON OR ANYTHING! Then the ending. Jesus, what a piece of crap. I was so mad I turned on the commentary and I just want to find the director and make him sign a contract to never direct/produce again.

This review is random and full of anger, etc. and I know this. I just don't want anyone else making the mistake of watching this piece of crap. Stay away. Anyone who says this movie is good probably was in this film/has severe brain damage.

Well I was 16 when this released and I saw it without knowing anything about the plot and I had a crush on the very pretty and cute Camilla Belle after seeing the movie. So, this is one of my ultimate guilty pleasures and I will always love this film. This was coming on TV the other night and I just saw it again for the 6th time without a second thought. I hope you will watch it without any preconceived bad false notions about it.

Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is a high school girl who is on the track team and one of her best friend has kissed her boyfriend. So, she breaks up with him and refuses to talk to her friend. She has also talked too much on the phone, like 800 extra minutes, and her dad makes her to babysit to earn her money so she can pay off her own bills. She has to babysit Dr and Mrs. Mandrakis's (Derek de Lint and Kate Jennings Grant) kids and they live in a huge lakeside house. Things start to get a bit creepy when a stranger (Tommy Flanagan) keeps on calling Jill and seems to be spying on her. She can't find the house maid and the police don't give much thought to her predicament.

Though there are many films of this kind out there, the studios just keep on churning them out every year. Do you know why? It is because every year new kids step into their teens and they would not see old movies of this kind. So, this will be new for them and a babysitter who is stalked by a psycho killer is pretty horrifying if you have ever babysat in a house which makes some creepy noises. Almost every kid will connect with that. Camilla was good in her role, though many have complained that she didn't portray her fear very well. Well, what do I know; maybe some girls don't like to show they are afraid of the killer (ring a bell?) I am a guy, so don't think only girls or young boys will be afraid of this film. The first time I saw the film, I was horrified and wanted Jill to get out of the house, away from the killer. Now, its more like a pleasure to see her and the beautiful mansion once again. That house is huge with all the modern securities and gadgets within it.

The opening scene is very chilling and the director tries very hard to give us false jump scares which were quite annoying with repeated viewings actually. The decor of the house was magnificent, with the bird sanctuary or something within the house and a beautiful lake outside. The atmosphere is very eerie because of the magnitude of this house. I have to say, Jill is a very lax babysitter. She doesn't even check on the kids until the prank caller asks her about them. The adults in the film are not given much scope for acting. Even the stranger, Tommy Flanagan is just a caricature. They could have at least given him some kind of weapon to show us how he killed his victims. That's the only slight flaw I found in my first few viewings. Jill's friends are dumb and boring, at best. I wanted them to finish their scenes more quickly so that Jill had more screen time, without their distractions. The kids were not used properly in the film, though. This film doesn't have an ounce of sexual tension, which was quite surprising and I was happy with that (Many pg-13 movies make the actresses run around in their underwear). Don't let the rating on IMDb fool you. This is quite a good suspense thriller for us youngsters.

8/10

The original When A Stranger Calls became known as one of the scariest movies of all time simply for it's brilliant opening 20 minutes. People forget that the rest of the film (besides an almost equally effective closing 20 minutes) is sort of a drag. A remake wasn't the worst idea in the world, especially since the original film's sequel, When A Stranger Calls Back, already improved upon the original.

This remake gets a lot of things right. The location/set is stunning and not a bad place to be trapped for 90 minutes. There are all sorts of interesting hallways and staircases to get one's imagination going. The music is appropriately eerie and the sound mix does a great job of adding tension. The titular stranger is kept in the shadows for most of the film and we have no idea who he is or what his motivations are.

Where the film fails is the casting of its lead. Camilla Belle is a beautiful girl, but she's dramatically limited and not terribly charming. She's certainly not interesting enough to watch by herself for 90 minutes. When the set is more interesting than your leading lady, you know you have issues. This is a shame, too, because the screenplay itself isn't terrible. It extends the original's opening sequence to the breaking point at times and has to keep everything a little bit too safe so that it can keep its PG-13 rating (for example, the children Jill is watching are never in any real jeopardy, which is kind of a downer since the urban legend it's based off of always has them falling victim to the killer), but it's a surprisingly effective little chiller.

This is the type of movie I would watch with friends at the movies as a thirteen year old, and not being scared then either. Just stupid, extremely predictable and no pay off.

The concept of experience, and how it works for and against us is something of a misnomer. By logic, having the foresight to see how a course of action works, we are able to improve upon the decision making which led up to it, ultimately culminating in a better decision.

Or at least, that is the way these types of things are supposed to work. Indeed, in the realm of theater and movies, that concept has never functioned on a consistent basis to produce better movies that work in more effective ways. The next example of this is 2006's "When a Stranger Calls," which itself is a remake of the 1979 film of the same name that, according to the IMDb page, was originally planned to be a sequel to Black Christmas.

Like the original, we meet a young woman (the very lovely Camilla Belle) who will be babysitting the children of the wealthy Dr. and Mrs. Mandrakis (the same names used for the parents of the 1979 original) whilst they are away to dinner and a movie. And like the original, throughout the course of the night, the young babysitter is bombarded with phone calls from a malevolent stranger who is planning to do more than just scare her over the course of this evening.

Unlike the original however, this film is loaded in back story. Take the first scenes as an example of how this back story functions differently. In the original, we start with the baby sitter arriving at the Mandrakis' home; in this remake we start with an allegedly grisly multiple murder apparently perpetrated by the same man trying to do the baby sitter harm. The creators of the film may have included it in the hope of creating a more dynamic story, but in fact this works against the film.

In the original, for instance, we get the sense that this very disturbed individual (with a creepy, spastic English accent that seems to make your skin crawl with its perversity) has in fact been stalking this girl. Without the back story, it makes sense that the intruder knows that the girl was in the house alone, that her calls didn't alert the police of the impending doom, and so on. The absence of the back story asks the viewer to fill in the gaps.

In this remake however, the presence of the back story makes no sense. In the conversation with Mrs. Mandrakis, we learn that Jill was retained at the last minute ("we were so thrilled to find a babysitter at the last minute," or something to that effect), albeit while we are marveling at this isolated house. So, why is the psycho stalking Jill? How did he come to know that she was babysitting? How did he gain access to a secured house (no doubt ADT would happily dis-spell the absurd failings of this beautiful home's security system if one were interested enough to call them and ask), the phone number, the son's phone number (the son who doesn't always live in the guest house), and knock off the housekeeper without being spotted? Is it silly to ask this question? Well then, how about the other questions- how is it that Jill's best friend gets through the main gate when it would seem logical that the Mandrakis' would've shut the gate when they left? In the age of voice mail, why is Jill answering the phone at all? In the opening scene, when the policeman says there wasn't a murder weapon, then what was used to kill the woman and her child(ren)? I mean, lets consider this logically- if someone used their bare hands, then there is still a murder weapon, right? So much of this movie depends on the viewer to ignore the contradictions and the nonsense and focus merely on atmosphere, sound and the dialogue between the killer and Jill- however this only works so far. The opening scene, where a detective opens the door and looks horrified while piercing music works so poorly that no one in the theater could even understand how to feel when I was watching the film. Less than ten seconds later, he's still visibly shaken whilst the coroners cart out the body bags- by mere logical presumption the only thing he could've been looking at were body bags from the doorway of the room. Perhaps terrifying for a private citizen, but for a detective whose job it is to track down killers? C'mon.

Everyone in this film is cute except the killer, and whilst I originally thought that this was a curious coincidence, later I began to ponder the message. This film is not intended for adult audiences- its cast and its very slight levels of violence seem to indicate its meant much more for a young teen audience. And this is exactly what teens these days need: a movie sending the message that the beautiful people are always good and wholesome, and the not so beautiful people are evil psychos.

In the course of writing this review, I have even rethought the score and reduced it sharply. If you're looking for scares, may I suggest renting the original, or better yet, rent "Black Christmas"- a film much better than either the original or the remake.