Artivels Undescribable Perfection

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

markcope1981 this film IS great julia is in a house with two kids shes in charge of a man keeps knocking on the door and he wont leave one thing leads to a nother and the kids disseaper never to be seen again the kidnapper returns to torment her until jill from the first film comes to her aid but can she stop the kidnapper before its too late i think this movie is scary darkness and shadows play an important part do not watch this film alone it will give you nightmares 10 out of ten really good scary movie that you will like ranks up there with all of halloween and its predecssors first 20 minutes scary title is misleading as the door plays a role in this film just as a phone does in the first really good

DVDZombie This is a genuinely decent thriller. It manages to capture much of the suspense and terror of When A Stranger Calls (1979) while bringing back Carol Kane and Charles Durning to reprise their original roles. Overall the plot, acting, direction, script work, story and camera work are all very well done. Why then do I say it's hard to watch? The movie falls down in two ways, the first is the terribly dated nineties fashions and hair styles. Most of it would be forgivable if the main characters clothing and hairstyle weren't so bad. This may seem like a trivial complaint but in all seriousness, it makes the movie hard to watch. A woman with a mullet, the vests, the high wasted stone washed (or is it acid washed?) jeans, the white running shoes, I mean it just looks so bad that it actually distracts you from the movie. Most film makers are careful to avoid dating their movies in this way. Generally they try to have actors and actresses look good while still keeping enough distance from popular fashion that the movie still looks good twenty years down the road. In the case of this movie though, caution was apparently thrown to the wind.The second downfall of this movie is the ending, which I won't give away but I'll elaborate a little on why it hurts the movie. The original ended in a fantastically sinister way. Having watched it recently, the ending of When A Stranger Calls actually sent a chill up my spine. This film however fails to achieve that and instead offers up a sort of ho hum ending that's quite forgettable.There is also a strange scene in a strip club that must of been born out of the California hard body craze. Rather then spoil the joyous fun by describing it, I'll leave it up to those of you who are adventurous enough to watch this movie and find out what I mean.All of that said, Charles Durning is fantastic in this as he has been in most things I've seen him in. He plays the role of the worn out detective very well. Carol Kane is believable as the somewhat strung out victim of a psychopath trying to move on with her life and achieve something meaningful. Jill Schoelen provides a good performance and the rest of the cast, with a couple of exceptions, all do a good job. The movie really is worth watching if you can tolerate the fashion disasters of it's era...actually disasters may be to a light a word, horrors maybe?

krorie "When a Stranger Calls Back" is really a sequel to "When a Stranger Calls" and not just a remix. The 2006 "When a Stranger Calls" is actually a remake of the first twenty or so minutes of the original 1979 version which was the superior part of the film. The 1979 original drifted aimlessly for the middle third of the movie before regaining much of its momentum for the final third.The made-for-cable "When a Stranger Calls Back" has some excellent scenes that do actually scare the heebie-jeebies out of the viewer. The use of the door rather than the telephone during the first part introduced a new aspect of the crazed psycho, that he could throw his voice. For this viewer the creepiest part occurred with Charles Durning encountering the monster in the alleyway. The cinematography with the camera zooming in on the creature all in black lurking in the darkness showing his blazon eyes before closing them for a full blackout is truly amazing. The angle of the shot showing Durning attempting to discover the hidden evil with the noir-like rain silhouetting his features is a stroke of cinema genius.That the producers were able to reunite two of the key figures in the original after fourteen years makes "When a Stranger Calls Back" even more relevant as a sequel. Carol Kane and Charles Durning reprise their roles as babysitter Jill Johnson (Jill as in kill) and John Clifford respectively to great effect. The chemistry between the two is still present."When a Stranger Calls Back" is also more believable than the other two Stranger films. For instance, the babysitter does check the children first thing the way a real babysitter would do. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is not as brutal as the other two. In the made-for-cable sequel the children simply disappear. In the other two, there is no weapon found, meaning the the killer ripped the bodies to shreds using his bare hands. If you enjoyed the 1979 flick, you should enjoy this one and the 2006 remake. All three are above average for mad slasher type suspense films.

Mister_Anderson If you were a fan of the first movie, "When A Stranger Calls", you definitely need to check this one out. If you were only a fan of the first 15 or so minutes from the first movie, you still need to check out the sequel."When a Stranger Calls" is primarily known for (abeit not widely known) its nail-biting, excruciatingly tense beginning. Then, however, the movie drifted off track. It tried to make us sympathize too closely with the killer. A little sympathy is good, but "When a Stranger Calls" went overboard and the overall film suffered for it, feeling unfocused and unpolished."When a Stranger Calls Back" fixes all that. First of all, and these are not spoilers to either movie, while in the first film the killer was once caught and escaped, in this one the killer had never been caught. No one knows who he is or even if there is more than one.More importantly, though, "When a Stranger Calls Back" gives the viewer just enough information to follow the story but not enough to explain every detail. This is a good thing, as it creates a greater sense of unease. For instance, did the children from the beginning die? No one knows, but they've been missing for five years.The scenes are picked deliberately and each one emits an eerie coating that makes the viewer feel uncomfortable for the entire movie (i.e. the house at the beginning and the hospital room at night). Music, thankfully, is not used to attempt to induce scares out of people. Rather, the scary scenes are deathly silent.While there are a couple jump shocks, this film relies primarily on atmosphere. This is where the first movie failed. We find out early on that the killer was caught and then escaped from a mental ward many years later. But we the viewers see the killer close up repeatedly in the tiresome second act as the guy does very non-scary and nonviolent things. Here, though, no one knows who the killer is. In fact, the only evidence that there even was one (besides the hysterical babysitter who could have been "seeing things") is that the children are missing.Much like "The Ring", this film works because it sets up a mystery from the first act, defining several clues, and challenges the viewer to figure out the solution. The first movie had no mystery after the first 15 minutes."When a Stranger Calls Back" doesn't claim to be anything other than a creepy movie, and it does this extremely well. Give us the scares, the feeling of dread, and then sends us on our way. The resolution is neither a good nor bad ending; it just "is", and feels all the more real for it.A must see, even if only once, for any horror fan.