tohkwongweng Although the beginning was really good the rest of the movie was a little draggy,and Duncan as the killer cuts a pathetic figure. Hard to believe someone so scrawny could have the strength to murder with his own hands. The ending wasn't scary in the least. I'm being generous with the 6 rating it's more like 5.5.

axapvov It´s been said, the opening and climax are great. I personally would add that Carol Kane is awesome. The middle part just hasn´t dated well. It can feel at times like trying to stretch a shorter concept but it adds to the psycho´s sociopathy and the cop´s motivation. That does bolster the climax, not as quotable as the opening but kind of scarier. It wouldn´t work as well without that "middle part" even if it should ideally be a bit shorter. After knowing what we learned about the characters, the suspense and the film itself have grown all the way up. I genuinely got the chills at the very end and that is worth more than all the jump scares in the book. It´s flawed, but a solid classic nonetheless. You´ll probably sleep with the lights on and isn´t that what horror films are about?

MissSimonetta Were this a short film that consisted only of the first twenty minutes, I would not hesitate to give it at the very least a 9/10, if not a 10/10. However, after the initial scene, the film loses its way, meandering with little focus and nothing resembling a protagonist. Who is the main character? Surely not Carol Kane's babysitter, as she is in the film for all of thirty minutes. Neither the detective pursuing the killer, the hostile but still sympathetic woman forced into helping trap the killer, not even the killer himself are good leads either.There are some suspenseful moments throughout and there is one very clever scare in the last five minutes, but if you're curious about this movie, do yourself a favor: stop the film before the first half hour.

whineycracker2000 I think it's fascinating (and sort of sad) that a movie like "It Follows" (while not terrible, but very tiresome for those who grew up in the 70's and 80's and can call every one of its myriad influences that it flat out rips off.).gets rave reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and then a film as influential, terrifying, and so well made as this 1979 shocker (yes, even with its complete tonal shift into character study in the mid-portion) gets a 6%? Everything about this film is first rate, and I firmly believe the first 20 minutes is arguably the closest thing to a nightmare caught on film in the medium's long history (along with Chainsaw 74').The film requires patience. Younger reviewers who find the film tame and "not scary" have to be reminded of the time period that this film was released. Child killers like Gacy, and a dozens more were at their peak in the 70's, which is why Carpenter's Halloween, and "Stranger" resonated so much to the movie-going public. When a Stranger Calls may indeed be based on an urban legend, but do some extensive research on the horrors taking place in 70's suburbia, and "Stranger Calls" starts to look like a fairy tale in comparison. Again, it's all about context; on one hand, one must consider that "women in peril/stalker films" were a new sub-genre. Long before Jason, American Horror Story, Saw, etc. we had very few horror films that reminded audiences that horror wasn't just set in outer space, old creepy castles, rural wastelands, or even creepy motels. They literally could be one house away. For the sake of time, I want to recommend this really thought-provoking piece that had me seeing this 1979 mini-masterpiece in a brand new light: it's called "Giving When a Stranger Calls Another Shot" in a 2014 issue of BirthDeathMovies. IMDb won't let me post the link here, but I strongly recommend taking a look!