When A Stranger Calls Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Evil Hits Home
Whatever You Do, Don't Answer The Phone.
A young high school student babysits for a very rich family. She begins to receive strange phone calls threatening the children. When she finally realizes that it's not a joke, she calls the police, only to find that the call is coming from inside the house
| Camilla Belle | Jill Johnson |
| Tommy Flanagan | Stranger |
| Katie Cassidy | Tiffany |
| Tessa Thompson | Scarlet |
| Brian Geraghty | Bobby |
| Clark Gregg | Mr. Johnson |
| Derek de Lint | Dr. Mandrakis |
| Kate Jennings Grant | Mrs. Mandrakis |
| David Denman | Officer Burroughs |
| Arthur Young | Will Mandrakis |
| Madeline Carroll | Allison Mandrakis |
| Steve Eastin | Detective Hines |
| John Bobek | Officer Lewis |
| Brad Surosky | Boom Boom |
| Karina Logue | Track Coach |
| Simon West |
4.50 out of 10 (7484 votes)
Visitor Reviews
An Average Horror Film
posted on 31 Aug 2009People nowadays expect too much from films, especially when it comes to horror films. When you mention the word "horror" film, what's the first thing that probably pops into your mind? Probably some scary images full of blood and gore and frightening music. In other words, we expect some scary, concrete(physical) things to look at. But people are forgetting that that's not what horror is all about. There's also emotional and psychological horror, which is just as scary. And that is what "When a Stranger Calls" is based on, and that is what the audience must realize. Now, from my personal experience, this movie didn't scare me much. So was it good? It was an "allright" film; it wasn't perfect: meaning the plot can be predictable, and the whole idea of the film was simple (A girl keeps getting some mysterious phone-calls from a guy with bad intentions.) So how scary was the film? It honestly depends on the person watching the movie. If you watch the film with a clear and relaxed mind and try to interact with the movie by listening to the spooky background music and give the movie a chance, you will be entertained and get that creepy, spooky, and frightening feeling. After all, the movie is all psychological and it depends on the audience's imagination to scare themselves out. I also must say that the director made an excellent choice of choosing Camilla Belle, for carrying out the film, and who did an excellent performance.In a word, "When a Stranger Calls" was an average horror film that could have done much better. Nevertheless, it will entertain you if you give the movie the chance and realize that the horror is all in the mind and imagination.
how were the children?....
posted on 29 Aug 2009a remake of the first fifteen minutes of the 1979 film of the same name.a babysitter is terrorised by menacing phonecalls asking her if the 'children are safe'.the calls carry on throughout the night and increasingly scare the sitter. the police cannot do anything as the calls are not threatening, but they would like the sitter to try and keep the caller on the phone for at least a minute to ba able to trace them.when the call is traced, they are coming from within the house.at first i thought this film was going to be very bad, because of the reviews, and secondly because the original movie had this scene last for just over fifteen minutes and was very very tense. so how could they make this as tense extending it to just over eighty minutes??Simon West does an adequate job and i have always liked him since he directed 1997 'Con Air' and made one of the best action films of the nineties.what ruins this film slightly is the dreaded pg-13 rating and the predictable shock-jump moments with screeching soundtrack.the house is great to look at though and the design of the film has good production value.but we learn nothing of the killer and really not much about the sitter (apart from the fact she is having boyfriend trouble and her best friend kissed him blah blah blah).not as bad as the critics made it out to be as the original was very poor after the initial opening scene, and it does add a little gravitas that the phones are portable, so the killer could be any where.few plot holes aside, this is worth a watch, even if it is just for trying to spot Lance Henriksens voice.
Not a Terrible Movie
posted on 29 Aug 2009I give When A Stranger Calls a generous 7/10, because I found the beginning very suspenseful. This was basically my first "scary movie". It really wasn't very scary, but it was extremely suspenseful, I was just waiting for something to pop out.Camilla Belle is good in the lead role, as the terrified girl who's babysitting job turns into a nightmare when a mysterious Stranger gives her a call. Then the movie turns into a cat-and-mouse game.The movie can be a little lame at times, but I thought it was generally well-done. It's directed by Simon West of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, also a 7/10 movie. Maybe next time his movie will get a 10/10 if he does better than he has been. When a Stranger Calls earns a 2.5/4
Poor acting and weak dialouge don't help this stale remake
posted on 27 Aug 2009I wasn't expecting much when i went to see When A Stranger Calls. But I wasn't expecting this little either. None of the characters were developed enough for us to care if they were killed. And not seeing anyone get killed doesn't make this any scarier. Most of the scares rely upon cheap thrills. The music shrieks up only to reveal a cat come through the door, or a friend mysteriously appear in the house. Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) has no memorable lines, and her stupidity is a force to be reckoned with. Every part of this movie could use improving and Simon Wests inexperience as a director is apparent. It reminds me of an old episode of Goosebumps, with a cheesy killer, a man with no name, and a face in hidden in silhouette. Overall this movie isn't worth the price of admission but if your looking for a cheap thrill from Blockbuster, this might not be a bad choice. It won't scare you, but it might scare your girlfriend.
The baby sitter
posted on 27 Aug 2009One wonders about the wisdom of the people behind this project. Why bother to remake a a superior film? This makes a plea for leaving things the way they were and concentrate in making original movies with better screen plays and leave alone the originals.The problem with this version of Simon West's version is the screen play of Jake Wade Hall. The original was co-written by Steve Feke and the director of the 1979 movie, Fred Walton. The premise in which the film is based doesn't make sense from the start. We are given a sort of prologue in which the carnival-like area is juxtaposed with the lonely house next to it in which a phone rings but there is no one at the other end and we hear screams and then see the police arriving at the scene of the crime.Jill Johnson, the young heroine of this tale, is a girl that appears not to be savvy in ways of dealing with the pervert that is obviously calling the Mandrakis residence. That brings another point, if the Mandrakis have a live-in housekeeper, why bother to engage a young girl to take care of the two children she doesn't even see until half way through the film? Things get sillier with the arrival of Tiffany, the girl that supposedly stole Jill's love interest away from her. Oh well, the only interest in the movie is the beautiful house.We have liked Camilla Belle in other films, especially "The Ballad of Jack and Rose", but she has nothing to do in this misconceived film. Better luck next time, Ms. Belle.
Oh dear...
posted on 27 Aug 2009There really isn't much to say about this movie, other than it is not to be taken seriously under any circumstance...But allow me to elaborate.Well to begin with, it's a remake, now I'm not one of those people that just bash remakes right away and say that's why they are bad movies, but in this ones case, I agree with all the people who bash the remakes. To add to that, the acting is probably some of the worst I've seen in a long time, Camilla Belle, in my opinion, is probably one of the worst actresses Hollywood has to offer right now and I hope to not see her in any serious role again. Then there is the plot, to begin with it's extremely paper-thin with absently no depth, the string of events that are supposed to be "frightening" in the movie made me laugh at wow badly the script was written and how even worse it was performed. Oh and not to mention that terrible ending...Overall everything in this movie just crashes & burns. The only reason I gave this 3/10 and not a one is because, 1. I give it credit for being so much more entertaining than the original, which was a total bore - 2. Since I found the movie so hilariously stupid, it was very entertaining!Bad Acting. Bad Script. Worse Ending. Please Avoid if you have something better to do!Final Grade: 3 / 10 \ D-
Loved It
posted on 21 Aug 2009We Waited so long to see it.... All shows were sold out in mass... Which makes sense now that I saw it. Thought it was great. Just wish they had better known characters and i Wish it was a little longer... Other than that I think its definitely worth seeing!! I will definitely see it again and would recommend it to anyone who likes to be scared. We did a lot of jumping and screaming!!! The whole theater went crazy!! Great acting and great plot and ending..... Go see it! I'm sure you'll love it!! Whatever you do, don't answer the phone.. lol I know Ill think twice about babysitting in the boonies... either that or bring a lot of people with me to help out..
my guilty pleasure
posted on 21 Aug 2009every once and awhile, i like putting on an average 'scary movie" late at night in the dark when I'm home alone. This is the perfect flick for that kind of night. The stunning and simplistic design and modern decor of the house surprisingly gives the film a good atmosphere. I was a little disappointed with the Camille belles character. Even by the end of the movie we still don't no too much about her, to us she becomes just an average typical teenage girl and it is had to sympathize with her situation. None of the less, it is an entertaining movie and you cant help but be curious as to what will happen every time the phone rings. Next time you find yourself at home one night with not much to do, find a copy of this film and enjoy it for what it is.
Generic teen horror warning - get ready for clichés
posted on 19 Aug 2009I wish I could score this as a zero. Yes it really is that bad. Yet another mass produced horror flick that uses every cliché in the book to get some cheap scares. It manages to stretch out a 15 minute scene from the original to nearly and hour and a half of boring, generic, teen horror.You don't need blood and guts to make a film scary, just take a look at 'The sixth sense' or 'The others' for proof. What you do need is an original script, innovative directing, good acting, and a few surprises thrown in. This film has none of those qualities.There's no need for me to explain to anyone that enjoys good horror films what all the clichés are. Lets just say there is nothing original about this film or the way it tries to scare the audience. It's all been done before, and it's all been done a lot better than in this movie.If you want to see good films in this genre watch 'the others', 'The sixth sense', the original 'haloween', and the blue print for these types of films 'Friday the 13th'.Anyone who thinks this is a good film needs a serious injection of good taste! Avoid at all costs.
It's crap.
posted on 19 Aug 2009This movie was absolutely repulsive. Not a single thing in this "film" was scary. I'll give it this, the acting wasn't half bad, but the characters were extremely stupid. And that's as nice as I can put it. Leave it up to a desperate teenager to give her boyfriend, who cheated on her with her best friend, the number to a huge, remote house in the mountains that she's babysitting at. Of course, he prank calls her, throwing off the whole "A scary man is calling me" idea to most people who just can't seem to grasp that it's not him the whole time! Also, this girl, Jill, was such a dumb person! Like her brilliant idea to go running in hurricane conditions to the guest house to see if the housemaid is over there, leaving the kids in a house where, although she doesn't know it, a psychotic murderer is watching them. Then, when the killer finds them in the kids room, where he's hiding in the ceiling like a bat, they go taking off to the zen room which happens to be in this house. So when they're sneaking around in there, Jill decides to hide in the water. Yea, like he won't find her there. And the whole "I'm in this hospital by myself, and the killer is there too!" thing at the end was so obvious that it was a dream. This movie was absolutely dreadful. I do not recommend it to anyone.
Not well done, not fresh, and not nice to see....
posted on 19 Aug 2009The first review is so confounding, I'm not sure if we saw the same movie, however when you admit "I didn't know what to expect", that pretty much explains the glowing review. This piece of #**!! was so full of stale clichés (including husky, heavy breathing on the phone), so full of unrealistic choices and situations, that it may have been laughable if it wasn't so dull.I'm giving it 2 stars solely because of the imaginative photography -- the film is full of haunting shadows and reflected light that is visually compelling and is the only reason to watch this film.WARNING -- Possible spoilers: If you like plot holes, "Stranger" is full of them. Why doesn't the lead call the police right away? Why does she just keep answering the phone if it's frightening her so much? Why does she TURN OFF the SECURITY SYSTEM? Why did they hire a babysitter at all if the maid was still at the home? And who is the stalker that is finally caught by the police -- this is never explained. And worst of all why doesn't she just TURN ON THE LIGHTS rather than roam the huge, darkened house? Ridiculous and totally implausible. It's just a vapid "woman in jeopardy" thriller that completely fails to thrill or frighten...A true waste of film, money and time.
horrible
posted on 17 Aug 2009This is definitely right up there with one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. It was just so predictable. I knew everything that was going to happen in this movie before it did. And I didn't even see the original! What first drew me to this movie was that it was supposed to be some what based on an urban legend I use to love. Well, this movie just completely ruined the legend for me. They should have made the ending into one of the other versions of the legend where like the babysitter dies and tries to climb up the stairs with no legs. Now, THAT movie I would have loved.This movie just seemed to go on and on forever, it was so boring! My advice is if your browsing through movies and come across this one, just move along.
Good Idea, Bad Movie
posted on 15 Aug 2009The movie itself was okay, it's based on an urban legend. The plot line is basic, but the movie did a good deal of throwing you off and confusing you, right from the first few minutes. Not only did the plot flow poorly, the characters weren't too believable either. I didn't like the acting at all, it could've been done MUCH better.The big house in the movie is just to distract you and give you something to look at while nothing actually happens. The movie is about 80 minutes of nothing but a guy calling and breathing, with the occasional "Have you checked on the kids?" Then the last 7 minutes ends the movie with an anti-climactic, unthrilling, and poorly done action scene. I must admit, I jumped a few times during the movie, but overall I was really unimpressed.Save your money, or see something else.
Classical and scary
posted on 13 Aug 2009Call me a Heretic, but I believe this version is an improvement over the original film, made decades ago. It strips the idea to its barest (and most effective) essentials, by eliminating the backstory for the bogeyman who terrorizes a hapless babysitter. Like a story told around a campfire, the story is simple, direct, and has an uncluttered agenda that it realizes efficiently, without resorting to graphic gore, rough language, or gratuitous sex. Like Carpenter's "Halloween", which is a high standard to set, this version of "Stranger" keeps on track, with a streamlined screenplay, a grand setting (love that hi-tech house) and good direction. Suspense is favored over shock, but with delightful results. People may have missed this mini-classic because they expected the kind of overkill common in modern thrillers. Instead, this fine little film delivers a scary, but charmingly simple story, much like the golden age of television films in the seventies, like "Dying Room Only", and "Duel". Devoid of anything terribly offensive, and created for maximum effect, this may be the PERFECT "sleepover" film for teenaged girls. Kudos all around, from set decoration to actors to camerawork, this one hit the nail on the head.
An under rated thriller
posted on 13 Aug 2009I'm a big fan of horror films, and I find that the section of films that have villains based on non-supernatural beings, ie the normal human not ghosts, have trouble at being genuinely horrifying. I had almost given up hope till I saw this film. Yes, it is based on an old urban myth, phone ringing, it's a killer etc, still doesn't take away what is good from this film.What I think is best about this film, is the intensity of the suspense. The only person we see on screen for a good portion of the film is the babysitter, which is an amazing experience, as we see things from her perspective and not the killers, giving more suspense as we the audience have no clue where this person is, or who he is. This is not done in other films I have seen, which takes away the effect, seeing the killings and some of the actions of the killer, making it like we are observing the action, not almost being a part of it.There is however this some what irritating back story of the babysitters love life with her ex boyfriend, which is possibly not necessary. That and some of the acting brings a mark down for this film.Besides that, I think that this style of filming horrors and thrillers is the way forward for the genre, directed away from the numerous clichés we have seen before.
Can You Hear Me Now?
posted on 11 Aug 2009The original 1979 movie with Carold Kane scared the living you know what out of me when I was a kid. Those first 20 minutes or so had me transfixed in fear and terror. It was one of the best openings of a scary movie. The rest of that movie?. Not so much. But it's been a while, and I don't remember much beyond those first 20 minutes. This remake changes things a bit. There is no scary opening minutes that is then changed to a standard catch the killer chase movie. The whole movie takes place in the house during the babysitting job. To me, that's actually a bit more interesting. Unfortunatley, the movie doesn't carry that new direction of the story very far. Nothing really interesting happens in the movie until the last 25 minutes or so. We got instant terror with the original, but now have to wait thru most of the movie with this one to see some real good stuff. And even then, it seems to be over much sooner than it should be. The best thing about this movie is it's lone star, Camilla Belle. This young lady carries the film rather well, and she is extraodinarily beautiful. She makes the waiting and waiting slightly more bearable. By now, you know the drill. Babysitter Jill(Belle)babysits for a wealthy couple and their 2 little children. She is in their huge home encased in lots of glass in some remote region. She begins having scary calls that get worse and worse. Finally, the calls are traced from the house!. It's the most famous urban legend of all, and it's been done to death. Not much new here to report. There's very little death(and they are non-graphic and off screen), and very little tension and suspense. When things finally do get moving and the killer makes himself known, it's a bit of too little, too late for the audience. By this time, it's been dragged on for as long as it can go and viewer interest has waned. Still, this is the best part of the film and elicits enjoyment, but you know it's coming and the unfolding drama holds little shock or scare value. If only the movie could of held more suspense and terror leading up to it. The atmosphere of the film is pretty good. The house itself has lights that turn on and off when you walk in the room, and there's lots of glass. The house is as much a character as, well, the characters. However, I think they could of made something more spectacularly scary with the lights. Of course, there is a storm brewing outside. As for the killer himself, the voice of the killer on the phone is supplied by none other than Lance Henriksen. And when the guy does appear, he is strangely interesting and mysterious. You see some of him, but not enough to really know who this guy is. There is not much in the way of cast here. Katie Cssidy(daughter of Partridge Family's David Cassidy)has a brief, and thankless, role as Jill's friend. David Denman(demon Skip on "Angel" and Roy on "The Office")appears as a friendly cop. That's about it. But it's really all about Belle. She is the sole cast member here and she has to carry this entire thing herself. She does pretty well, but the material isn't strong enough. You really like her and don't want anything to happen to her. You'll also be wishing she was in a better movie.
The Only Thing Scarier Than Nothing Is...Something
posted on 30 Jul 2009As most of us already know, this is a remake of a Carol Kane movie made back in 1979. I should say that I'm not a big fan of the original film and was hoping that this movie would correct some issues I had with the original. In that respect, it succeeded and failed at the same time. I think the original film was very slow paced towards the ending and this remake made the correct choice to skip that part entirely. However, what the original film did have was a very tense beginning. I think this is where this remake fails. The director Simon West directed Tomb Raider, so I was hoping for a very watchable movie that was well directed. He made the unfortunate decision to build suspense by having music cues start as Camilla Belle's character turns corners and open doors, only to find nothing there. This got tedious as it continually occurred. Had it happened once or twice it would have worked, but West overused the technique and, for me at least, it had a boy-who-cried-wolf affect. When something was eventually there, I simply didn't care anymore. West also took a completely different approach with the children from the original. In the original the killer is calling and asking the babysitter if she's checked the children because he's done something very horrible to them. Maybe it was to get the PG-13 rating, but West's approach was very different and it ended up being confusing to me since the madman was shown at the beginning to have intense rage issues. The madman's actions at the end of the movie simply didn't feel consistent with what happened at the beginning of the film. I had hopes for this movie, and like I said, it succeeded in many places the original failed, but a limp approach to suspense and the absence of any horror sank this film for me.
brilliant movie
posted on 30 Jul 2009This movie "when a stranger calls" is a really good movie..if you looking for a movie that gives creeps and chills go for this..the movie is a high tension movie, as you are wondering what might happen next..i don't what to spoil it for anyone , but all i should tell you that is .. if your into the creepy and high tenison movie ..you got to see this movie..you will be pleased as the creepy horror fills up your body!..it will make you not wanting to answer the phone anymore!!!i do rate this movie a 10 .. for there's a good horror , good script , good sound and good filming..
Blood Tingling, Hair Raising, Heart Stirring, Stunningly Sensational Thriller of the Year.
posted on 30 Jul 2009I thought this movie was absolutely amazing. It is extremely underrated and its previews don't do justice. I thought it was just another wanna be trying too hard to be-scary movie. I'm a huge fan of scary movies and I'm tired of the same old same old. This movie is practical and unbelievably realistic in all its dimensions, which enables it to really grab your attention and get under your skin. I was huddled up in a ball hiding behind a blanket the entire time practically holding my breath. I've never seen a movie with as much suspense built up as this one. From the actress chosen to the setting to the plot, It was simply mind blowing how well this movie was put together. Simply put, it was a masterpiece. I never want to be sitting alone in a room or house or anywhere ever again. Turn the lights off, turn up the volume, relax and allow yourself to be scared and you too will agree how mind blowing scary this movie actually is.
Sets a mood and delivers thrills the whole family can enjoy...
posted on 31 Aug 2009What keeps me coming back to this remake is the sheer fact that it succeeds in so much while doing so little. It's hard these days to find a good thrill without all the excess blood, sex and language but here the same thrill is achieved with a stripped bare premise. It's dark, it's tense, it's claustrophobic and most importantly it's entertaining. Thankfully Camilla Belle is a good actress despite her youth and beauty and so watching her and pretty much only her for almost an hour and a half is doable and enjoyable even. She's convincing in her role as distressed damsel and while the script, like most of this genre, insists on making her repeat stupid mistakes to prolong her agony in the end she plays it smart and realistic.
It can be difficult to absorb an audience when your plot revolves around a few short hours, but here the time seems well spent. Nothing seems drug out nor compressed and boggled. Simon West does a great job of creating a mood with lighting and sound and not to mention that house which is enough to scare the bravest of souls. The movie starts slowly, setting that said mood, and then it gradually starts to build speed, and once the first body is dropped this train is loosed from its tracks and sent spiraling down at breakneck speed.
So, the premise is one that I'm sure everyone is familiar with, but here's the rundown. Jill has just had an outing with her boyfriend who just so happened to kiss her best friend. Because of this issue they've been spending quite a bit of time on the phone and thus her phone bill is outrageous causing her parents to take away her phone and her car and force her to baby-sit in order to pay off the bill. That's why she finds herself being stalked by a crazed killer at the Mandrakis residence with no way of leaving.
The film may not be perfect but what film is? It's tense and scary and proves that you don't need all the adult elements to make an interesting thriller. It meets its purpose and I've recommended it to all my friends and family and they love it as well. Well worth the time and money and will prove to be a great way to spend the night on the couch with some popcorn and a loved one. Now I have not seen the original and so I can't comment on the two in comparison but I can say that standing alone as a teen thriller `When a Stranger Calls' delivers the goods.