laylastepford There are two ways this film can be rated: on it's own or compared to the original. Whether you have seen the original version of this film (1979) or not, makes a big difference on the way you see this version of the film. For that reason, I will rank the film in both ways:(1.) On It's Own (If you had never seen the original):Acting: 16/20 Writing: 30/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 34/40Overall: 80/100 B-Review: Almost the entire film revolves around the babysitter, which means Camilla Belle takes the brunt of the acting in this movie. She's not a bad actress nor an outstanding one and did a pretty solid job. She was pretty believable in her role but she didn't do anything special with it. The most important thing I can say about her performance is that while it didn't add anything special to the film, it also didn't take any value or integrity away from it.She did have a supporting cast but I doubt that any other character (aside from the Stranger/Caller) was in the film for more than 5 minutes total. All of the supporting cast had similar performances, credible and loyal to their roles.The plot of the script is very accurate to the most common versions of the legend and does a great job turning that "short story" into a full-length movie, without losing any of the suspense. That being said, there wasn't too much creativity in the script, as most of it does come straight from the legend.The flow and pacing of the film go well with the overall suspense in the movie. The soundtrack was like the acting - appropriate but not outstanding.Overall this film was a good Hollywood-stylized take on the now- famous "babysitter" urban legend.(2.) Compared To Original:Acting: 14/20 Writing: 13/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 37/40Overall: 64/100 DReview: This version makes A LOT of references to the original - from keeping the same character names for the babysitter and parents of the children being babysat, to the babysitter taking ice cream out of the fridge when checking and "securing" the house.In addition, the woman who plays Mrs. Mandrakis physically resembles Carol Kane, the main detective in this film physically resembles the detective in the original and even the Stranger in this film physically resembles Curt Duncan from the original.Camilla Belle does a much better acting job than Carol Kane, undoubtedly.*Spoiler Alert!*This version of the film focuses solely on the legend itself, whereas the legend was only the first 20 minutes of the original film. As a result, this version is not nearly as creative and entertaining as the original. There is really something to be said about the originality in the script and the performance of Tony Beckley as Curt Duncan in the original film; These factors make the original a much more timeless-classic than this newer version, especially by comparison.The writing in this version took no risks, and the result was a more consistent script than the original but less of a long-lasting impression. By comparison to the first 20 minutes of the original film, this version only really improved in the acting department - otherwise it was just a longer version of the same thing with less impact.The Stranger in this version is also a let-down in comparison to the Curt Duncan character in the original. It's understandable that the newer version had a phenomenal performance to contend with, that would likely not be upstaged, but the decision to replace it with a Michael Myers type version instead was a real bummer.After seeing the original, you even miss the detective's performance as it was such a compelling character.*End of Spoiler Alert!*All of that being said, the newer version is definitely an improvement where you'd expect it to be the most, in the directing/editing/producing departments. This newer film is visually done in a much more stylized, Hollywood manner that has a lot of entertainment value. That being said, it loses some of the "authentic" look that the older version has, which is a shame as the "authentic" look worked better for this kind of scary story and added more of a timeless feel/quality to it.Overall this newer version really lacks in originality of script, characters and performance compared to the original - yet is still watchable as a tribute to the original legend and film. However, if possible, I'd recommend watching the newer version before watching the original version, so as to enjoy both more. (Otherwise watching the original will very likely ruin the newer one for you by comparison.)Overall Score As Original + Remake Together: Acting: 15/20 Writing: 21/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 36/40Overall: 72/100 C-

zkonedog There are some movies that, when you move past a certain age, you really struggle getting into the drama/suspense of the plot and characters. "When A Stranger Calls" is exactly that kind of movie.For a basic plot summary, this film sees babysitter Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) terrorized by a mysterious caller who won't seem to leave her alone. As the calls keep coming in, Jill gets progressively creeped out and decides to take action.Like I said in the opening, the trouble with this movie is that once you are over about 15-16 years of age, the suspense themes of the film will no longer truly creep you out. Simply put, this is a "tween" flick through and through, as there really isn't enough "real" suspense to suck in those who have seen these types of efforts before.The other dramatic problem with "Stranger" is how they deal with Jill's antagonist. Instead of leaving anything to mystery, pretty much the whole scenario of what will happen is laid out in the film's opening scene. A bit more mystery might have been the way to suck in those viewers who aren't necessarily enraptured by the "babysitter in peril" angle.Overall, then, "When A Stranger Calls" is a below-average effort in the suspense genre, doing just enough to avoid a dismal rating. If you want any enjoyment from it at all, watch it with a young or pre-teen. Otherwise, this one can easily be skipped.

SlyGuy21 Man, and I was on a roll with good movies too! I mean sure I might've hit a speed bump with "Magic Mike XXL" but at least that had hot guys in it. This movie is all based on one scare, "A stranger keeps stalking this girl", this scare is then repeated for 75 minutes. It starts off slightly suspenseful, but after the fourth time of Jill thinking she hears something only for it to be a cheap jump-scare or nothing at all, the thrill dies pretty damn quick. And when I say "cheap jump-scare" I mean it. There's decent build up to the first few, but the payoff is something dumb like a cat, or a sprinkler system. And then after the film's climax, there's a balloon pop jump-scare for no reason (maybe in case you fell asleep which is pretty easy to do). I mean the concept of the movie is nothing new, if anything it's too toned down because of the PG-13 rating. I know the difference between genuine horror and just blood and nudity, but I feel like the lack of blood hurt this movie more than anything. The killer only gets two real characters, who served no real purpose to the plot anyway, but it looks like he just broke their necks. Compared to the previous victims that apparently got slaughtered off-screen, if you're gonna kill off nobodies in order to have a body count, at least make their deaths memorable.And I don't need boobs in a movie to hold my attention, but they would've made it at least a little bit more enjoyable than just a copy/paste scare structure. Oh wow, the stranger calls the house and hangs up. Oh wow, Jill thinks she hears something and goes to investigate. Oh wow, it was nothing. Repeat for the remainder of the movie. At least Jill acts like a real human would act in this situation when it starts, but by the end I barely cared. Also, I thought for sure the kids would get killed off. I know that makes me sound horrible, but I like when horror movies actually break certain taboos like killing kids and animals. I'm not saying they have to be tortured to death, but it makes the audience hate the killer more. Oh yeah, the killer in this is like a cardboard cut out. We don't know who he is, what his motives are, or why he chooses the people he does. I suppose the filmmakers did this to make him more mysterious and scary, like a Michael Myers character, but again the boring movie killed off the suspense. I would say "At least it's only 90 minutes", but "The Hitcher" from 2007 was shorter and at least I liked half of that movie. In fact I'd rather watch the first half of "The Hitcher" remake than watch this boring movie ever again.

Tyla Kar I just saw this film the other night for the second time. The first time I watched was over 5 years ago. I remember it not being very good, so I wanted to see and confirm if this was the case. It was.*****Spoiler Alert******The film starts off with the baby sitter arriving at the rich peoples houses (I can't be bothered mentioning names) and it goes downhill from there. We do not even see the children until near the end, and the killer; he is super-human, until he gets to the babysitter. Anyway most people have already discussed the story and acting, so I will just get onto what annoyed me most.The house uses a secure alarm system that requires a code for entry. This was activated while the Dr was at home, so how did the killer get inside to kill the Rosa the maid??? And how did he do it so cleanly without being noticed?Then we have her friend, Tiffany, enter the house and surprise her, via an open garage door that connects to the house WTF??? I am sure the alarm system is advanced enough to tell us if one of the main entrances is open.Worst still, when Tiffany leaves the house and gets into her car it suddenly won't start WTF??? She's got a Toyota, the same model I had, and I never had issues starting it. Anyway, there is a branch blocking the entrance, so she has to get out of her car. Then she gets hunted by the killer who moves at super speed, so she never sees it coming. After this the film gets even stupider, if that was even possible.So our babysitter sees the guest house light come on, and decides to leave the relative safety of the main house, go through the creepy forest which has a magical wind blowing through it, to the said house. WTF??? Why would she even want to do this? She was a scared teenager a few seconds ago, and now she's going Rambo??? Needless to say she returns to the house, and the killer is there. Now how did he go from the guest house to the main house completely undetected and enter without the alarm code? More importantly the house is absolutely massive. How did he know all the rooms and locations so well? Did he have psychic powers or study the mansion plans prior to this attack? Obviously that would have been impossible, as there was no way he could be anticipating a babysitter would be there alone. Anyway, I won't waste any more time here. I give it a 2 star only for production value. The rest is simply not worth it, and I will not be watching it a third time. Avoid if you can.