Reviews

Everyone keeps trying to compare this film to the Judd Apatow-era teen comedies, or the "American Pie" franchise. Thus, they are going into this with the wrong set of expectations. This isn't *that* kind of comedy. It has a lot more heart,for one thing, and it plays by a different set of rules. Apatow & Co., and "American Pie" come from the perspective of my generation (Gen X) projected on the current generation (Gen Y? The Millenials? Whatever we're calling them). This film comes more from the sensibilities of the current generation: sharing *everything* online, no such thing as TMI, no sense of privacy.

I tried to consider comparisons to other films. It reminded me a little, in spirit, of the recent little sleeper "Bart Got A Room." I also tried to approach it from the perspective of "'Porkys' made by kids who weren't born when the original was made." All of those fell short. Ultimately, it's its own film. Just like the kids it's about, it has a different set of boundaries and priorities; but underneath, the humanity is the same.

It is difficult to imagine anyone making a worse movie on purpose. Even my current Worst Movie Ever Made, "Night Divides the Day," was made by a bunch of clueless college kids with home video cameras and no money. This movie was made by professionals, with real actors and a budget. Deliberately trying to cash in on the current J-horror craze (even going so far as to cast a vaguely Asian-looking woman as the "star"), the story of an evil force spreading mayhem through text messages sounds promising but ultimately turns into an enormous pile of crud. Stupid jokes, unconvincing special effects, gratuitous nudity, and frankly ridiculous and predictable vignettes. Avoid this movie at all costs, even if it means renting "Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector" instead. "When Evil Calls" is *that* bad.

What's Good About It: Some inventive and genuinely creepy little effects that will get under the skin of even the most seasoned horror fan. Doesn't rely on the hackneyed soundtrack stabs for its "gotcha" moments. Even if you've seen everything, there's still a few things in this film that will make your jaw drop.

What Could Have Been Better About It: The acting was, at times, flat and unconvincing. It had a "shot-on-video" quality in some places (though,it mostly achieved the atmosphere it was striving for), and the camera work is full of needless close-ups of meaningless actions. Though the effects are genuinely creepy, I think they may have gone to the well a few too many times with some of them. The ending seemed rushed, and glossed over what could have been more impactful moments. The viewer is left to figure out a lot of things for themselves, not as a challenge by the filmmakers, but because they just missed it.

Still, a good little indie horror film that is easily several steps above the average. Well worth the rental.

The good news is that Brian DePalma seems to have outgrown his slavish devotion to Hitchcock. Unfortunately, he seems to have done it right when it would have served him best. Given the material at hand--a lurid murder, a complex tale of suspense, and the rich backdrop of 1940's Hollywood--this film would have benefited from a healthy portion of Hitchcock. What should have been at the very least a visually rich film (with the wonderful costumes and the great Art Deco theme of the era) lies flat on the screen in almost muted tones. DePalma's camera angles and shot selection would have benefited from a more Hitchcockian eye, instead relying on tired editing tricks. And worst of all, the film lacks any sense of pacing and economy, becoming muddled and tedious at several points. Yet, the answer to the fundamental question that should be asked of any movie ("Was it worth the $8?") is yes. A reserved, see-it-at-a-matinée-if-you-can yes, but still a yes.