When a Stranger Calls Back (1993 TV Movie) User Reviews (72)

Watch it alone.

[Zod-2 · 7/10 · 27 October 2002]

Before babysitters only had to worry if the phone rang, now they have to fear a knock on the door as well!

I'm a big fan of the first film and when I found out there was a sequel a few years ago I just had to watch it. The problem was I couldn't find it. Once I did find it I was a bit cautious about renting it. Would it just be a carbon copy of the original? Well yes it is and no it isn't. The format is the same but the writer Fred Walton has done his best to throw in many original ideas.

For those who don't know, the story follows a babysitter who is tormented by a stranger one night while babysitting. Five years later she is tormented again. The police wonder, is it the same person or is she just seeking attention? It's hard to say, but Jill (Carol Kane) who experienced the same situation years before believes her.

There are some problems with the movie. John Clifford (Charles Durning) who investigates the mystery solves it pretty quickly and hunts down the stranger just as easily. Also, the movie doesn't tie up all of it's plot threads nicely, like why the stranger does what he does, but that's okay because it leaves the viewer something to discuss with friends. What strengthens the movie is the amount of suspense in it. Not only are the first 20 minutes of the movie very suspenseful but there are a couple of good moments within the movie and the ending is superb (if not a bit unlikely).

Most times a movie will advertise itself as being so scary that you shouldn't watch it alone. But in the case of When a Stranger Calls Back (and the original When a Stranger Calls) the movie is much scarier when watched alone and not very scary at all when watched with another person.

I really liked this movie and I highly recommended it if you like movies that scare through suspense rather then gore. This movie is a nice change of pace from your typical theatrical horror release (it was made for cable). When a Stranger Calls Back gets a 7 out of 10.

TV sequel is surprisingly good!

[Nightman85 · 7/10 · 26 December 2005]

Made for television sequel of Walton's 1979 thriller ,When a Stranger Calls, surprisingly lives up to the original film in almost every way.

Jill is now a PI herself, and with the help of her old friend hopes to save a young woman who believes she has been terrorized by a maniac for years.

When a Stranger Calls Back mirrors the original film very much, but it's in a good way. It packs much of the same kinds of suspense and atmosphere of the original film, all the while telling a new and interesting mystery. Of course much of this is owed to director Walton, who returns to do another bravo job of molding this film.

Charles Durning and Carol Kane reprise their original roles well.

Intriguing and well-done all the way, When a Stranger Calls Back is a good sequel that isn't hampered by its television limitations. Those who enjoyed the original film will undoubtedly find it a worthy sequel.

*** out of ****

Pretty creepy thriller.

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 23 April 2005]

College student Juli Jenz(Jill Schoelen)underwent a traumatic incident with a psychotic killer(who uses the phone to terrorize),five years ago and now years later at college she's been getting some suspicious calls which lead her to believe the killer is back.When she contacts the police,they inform her that her original stalker is dead therefore she must be having flashbacks and refer her to a psychiatrist,instead of checking for physical evidence.Anyway,"When a Stranger Calls Back" works as TV produced remake of Fred Walton's 1979 classic "When a Stranger Calls".It has enough twists,turns and suspense to keep horror fans on the edge of their seats.The beginning is especially tense and memorable.There is no gore or strong violence and the killer's identity is kept secret through the film until the climax.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.So if even casually enjoyed the original "When a Stranger Calls",then this film is must-see.7 out of 10.Check it out.

Better than the Original

[lazarillo · 12 April 2004]

While most people claim that this belated sequel suffers in comparison to the overrated original, I really have to disagree. While the first half hour of the original was great, it was done in by an ill-conceived second act which introduced the creepy voice on the phone as a pathetic schlub, and thus greatly deflated the third act where the psycho comes after Carol Kane's own children. The first half a hour of this sequel was as good as the original, but Fred Walton seemed to have learned his lesson and kept his psychopath creepy and mysterious in the last two acts. The only serious misstep this movie makes is trying to shoe-horn the original Carol Kane and Charles Durning characters into the plot. (What are the chances that Carol Kane's Jill would become a counselor at a college where she would encounter someone who had been through almost the exact same ordeal that she had?) And, by the way, whatever happened to Jill Schoelen, the actress who plays Julie? She was the true heir to Jamie Lee Curtis's "scream queen" title, not Linnea Quigley or some other untalented, serial bra-popper, yet this is the last horror movie I remember her appearing in.

This one will scare the heebie-jeebies out of you

[krorie · 6/10 · 24 May 2006]

"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.

Thank God For Cell Phones

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 17 April 2020]

"When a Stranger Calls Back" (WSCB) is the sequel to the 1979 movie titled "When a Stranger Calls" (WSC). WSC was fantastic. It made the words, "Have you checked the children?" some of the eeriest words ever uttered. Fourteen years later another stranger would appear in similar circumstances.

WSCB starts off almost identically to WSC. A young lady by the name of Julia (Jill Schoelen) is babysitting two children when she receives a phone call. Shortly after the empty phone call there is a knock at the door and it's a man wanting to use the phone. He claims that his car is broken down and he wants to call the auto club to get a tow or a jump.

Julia, to her credit, did not open the door for this stranger. She got the info from him and said that she'd call the auto club. When she picked up the phone it was dead. She played it real cool and smart by telling him she did call and that it would be an hour before they could come help him. Now I have to digress a bit.

Not too long ago Mojo (a Youtube channel) had a top ten movie plots that would've been undone by a smartphone. Well, this movie would've been undone by a smartphone. Once Julia noticed the home phone was dead she would've immediately gone to her cell phone. And if the guy kept harassing her, as he did, then she would've used her cell phone to call the police.

Back to the movie review.

Eventually, the stranger at the door kidnapped the kids and Julia got away. Fast forward five years and Julia feels she's being stalked. She noticed small changes within her tidy minimalist apartment. The police wouldn't take her seriously though Jill Johnson (Carol Kane) did.

This was the movie's effort to connect the sequel with the original. They brought back Carol Kane and Charles Durning. Carol Kane played the babysitter in the original who was terrorized by the man that killed the kids she was watching. Charles Durning played the detective in the original.

The sequel, like the original, was full of angst all the way to the final scene where Jill had to contend with the stranger. After he hospitalized Julia he went after Jill. I think that's where it fell apart a little though. They made the stranger, William Landis (Gene Lythgow), almost supernatural with his abilities. How so?

He go into Jill's house, then locked her door from the outside to where Jill couldn't get out, painted himself to perfectly and seamlessly blend in with her walls, and threw his voice all around her like no ventriloquist on this Earth could do. It was all too perfect to create the final showdown in which he'd have the upperhand. You mean to tell me he had time to strip down, paint himself, texturize himself, and position himself in the perfect spot on her wall to where he looked like a brick wall and a drainage pipe???? Even IF he could've painted himself that flawlessly, there's no way he could've locked her door and gotten in the perfect position. Harry Potter couldn't have pulled off such a feat.

That large blunder cost the movie some credibility. I enjoyed it up until that point. I thought it was a more than adequate sequel. It's just too bad that they fell victim to overthinking their climactic scene.

One of the Most Scary Beginning of a Movie Ever

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 19 February 2004]

Julia (Jill Schoelen) is babysitting two children, when a stranger knocks at the front door, asking for using the phone to call the Automobile Club to fix his car. After some tense discussion through the door, she realizes that the children vanished and the stranger is inside the house. Five years later, odd things happen to Julia, and the psychologist Jill (Carol Kane) and the private investigator John Clifford (Charles Durning) help Julia. This movie has one of the most tense and suspenseful beginning I have ever seen. The situation through which Julia passes is amazingly real and scary. Unfortunately, the story `jumps' to five years later and become very common, predictable and full of clichés. I really feel sorry for that. The voice and accent of Carol Kane is irritating. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): `Um Estranho à Minha Porta' (`A Stranger At My Door')

The horror of the mullet.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 15 March 2018]

Belated made-for-TV sequel When A Stranger Calls Back starts off in full-on creepy mode, with babysitter Julia (Jill Schoelen) being disturbed by a stranger who knocks on the front door claiming that his car has broken down. In reality, he is a psycho who will not give up until he can get inside the house. After a tense stand-off, Julia doing everything to keep the man at bay, help eventually arrives, but not before the stranger is able to abscond with the children sleeping upstairs.

All of this is well executed by director Fred Walton, with a strong performance from Schoelen, but the real horror is what comes next: five years after the disappearance of the kids, Julia is now an emotionally withdrawn student - sporting a monstrous mullet. The short hairstyle Schoelen wore in the opening scene wasn't particularly flattering, but her mullet is truly terrible, a heinous hairstyle guaranteed to disturb fans of the actress. When the psycho reappears and begins to torment Julia, the harrassed girl shoots herself in the head, but I suspect that looking in the mirror at that abysmal haircut was also a contributing factor.

With Julia in a hospital bed, it is up to counselor Jill Johnson and detective John Clifford (Carol Kane and Charles Durning reprising their roles from the first film) to try and work out who it is that has been menacing the poor girl. At this point things get seriously silly, the nut-job revealed to be William Landis (Gene Lythgow), a ventriloquist who paints his face and body to blend in with his background (original, to say the least!). In a very silly finalé, Landis disguises himself as a brick wall in Jill's apartment, throwing his voice to confuse the woman.

4.5 out of 10, rounded down to 4 for the mullet, and for failing to give us any insight into Landis's motives (we never learn what he did with the kidnapped children).

I agree: Creepy & Better Than The Original

[ccthemovieman-1 · 8/10 · 22 March 2006]

The headline above seems to sum up some of the other reviewers' opinions of this film and I totally agree with them: I liked this sequel better. I will always remember this film for the first 20-25 minutes which really scared me the first time I saw it. It gave me the creeps, and always will if I don't watch it too often.

After that, the movie settles down, and the excitement leaves, but it still keeps you interested, picking back up again at the end with another suspense scene.

This is a "scare" movie - a sequel - that works although there are a few noticeable holes in the storyline. I liked the camera-work in here with the closeups of the door lock or the phone, the slowness of camera movement here and there to build suspense, etc. The ending, in which the killer blends into a wall, is very neat.

The main actors are interesting to watch and a main plus is the lack of profanity, especially surprising with Charles Durning in the film. The "R" rating had to be for a couple of topless waitress scenes.

Jill Schoelen gets third billing and she's the star of the movie. Carol Kane, the star of the first film: When A Stranger Calls, helps out on this case, too, and it's nice to see her again.

Just Hang Up

[sol-kay · 7/10 · 13 June 2004]

****SPOILERS**** There's a really gripping and terrifying half hour or so opening of the movie "When a stranger calls back" where Julia, Jill Schoelen, is trapped inside the house that she's baby-sitting in by some unseen psycho, who's playing a sick cat and mouse game with her. The sicko then ends up kidnapping the two children that Julia was baby-sitting and disappears into the night never to be seen or heard of again until some five years later when Julia is attending collage.

The madman for some reason known only to himself resurfaces and starts again to terrify Julia, in showing her that he's still around and watching her, by leaving clues like moving thing around in her off-campus apartment and driving, the already very emotionally disturbed,Julia almost out of her mind. Carol Kane, Jill, and Charles Durning,John Clifford, who were in the original "When a Stranger Calls" repeat their roles in this sequel. The two are so unnatural and artificial as well as perplexing to those of us watching the movie, who haven't seen the original film, without knowing about their previous involvement in the story that they only hamper the plot, instead of explain it, to the already very confused audience. If you never saw the first "When a stranger calls" you would wonder just why they were so prominent here in the first place? A flash-back of Jill & John Clifford in the original film inserted into the movie would have greatly helped but for some reason it wasn't done.

John somehow finds out who the psycho is, a person who's introduced by John to us watching the movie as a Mr. Landis, who's doing a ventriloquist act in some nightclub in the city. Landis doing his act, in black-face, at the club in what has to be one of the most puzzling as well as outrages scenes ever put on film. Having a dummy without a mouth, much less a face, Landis gives this pseudo-philosophical BS monologue about the facelessness of the humanity of the people in the audience. He then goes on telling the audience how that what they want to look like is not what their really like? Ladis just keeps on trash-talking and annoying as well as instigating the people in the club that the club manager has to throw him out of the place before the people watching him storm the stage and end up beating or even killing him.

John looking for Landis in a back-alley behind the nightclub tells him what a great act he has, what was John drinking at the time, and wants to talk to him about it only to have Landis take off and run away. We've seen Landis before in the hospital room where Julia was ,after she or someone else shot her in the head, as he just materialized out of nowhere. He's then seen for some reason beating on Julia's unconscious body so hard as if he hit her one more time he would have broke her in half.

John finds out the hotel where Landis is staying and is told by one of the people there that he came to the city to tell some woman that her children are dead which makes no sense at all since it's never explained to us why he did that. John also finds a number of photos in Landis' now deserted room of Julia both dressed and undressed in her hospital room taken by him.

The movie ends with Landis hiding out in Jill's loft apartment disguised as the apartments woodwork and masonry as he tries to kill her. Landis instead only comes across looking like a jerk as he messes up and ends up getting shot and killed himself by John who comes to Jill's rescue in just the nick of time. We were never really told in the movie just what were the reasons for Landis to terrorize and try to murder both Julia and Jill? did they do something to hurt him in the past? The ending of the movie which should have explained all this, just who Landis was and why he do what he did, explained nothing about this very troubled and dangerous individual and just left you even more bewildered then you were when you were watching the film.

Dumbest ending ever.

[culwin · 5/10 · 4 March 2003]

Ok, the beginning of this movie was pretty good. The middle part had potential, but was greatly lacking. The end was completely absurd. If you like your horror movies to come with laughs, then this is a good movie for you. If, however, you are seeking any plausibility, avoid this movie at all costs. Rating: 8 for the beginning, 6 for the middle, and 1 for the ending. Which averages out to a 5 for the whole film. Recommended only for fans of the first one.

Good Thriller

[ohnospeed · 8/10 · 19 September 2004]

I really enjoyed this film. It was was really suspenseful and scary, especially when he is bothering her through the front door...you never know where he is! I recommend this movie to everyone who likes thrillers. Not a horror movie, but scary none the less. The acting is very good..and with big stars..the film is hardly a flop. When the film starts it gets right to the point..starts right off with the babysitter going into the house where she is to watch the children for the night. as soon as the door closes you know something isn't right. You know this babysitter is NOT alone. A couple words of advice for babysitters...always check every lock in the house!

Julia can't come to the phone right now, since there's already a psychopath at the door

[Coventry · 6/10 · 19 August 2009]

The original "When a Stranger Calls" from 1979 was a dynamite and effectively petrifying little horror sleeper. Why? Because of its very simplistic but nevertheless fascinating concept of a perverted maniac persistently stalking a defenseless babysitter through sinister phone calls. Even though the more routine middle part couldn't hold a candle to the masterful opening twenty ones, the wholesome should definitely be regarded as a modest and influential genre classic. And the last thing you can say about writer/director Fred Walton is that he exploited the success and promptly produced a series of inferior sequels. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is actually a rather belated follow-up, but unmistakably one that perfectly mirrors the original film. This second, made for television production, is even pretty much identical with the same narrative structure, atmosphere-building, lead characters and portrayal of the villain. There's the brilliantly tense and gripping opening, the tedious and somewhat annoying middle section and the short but powerful shock-climax. Cherubic and warm-hearted young babysitter Julia is babysitting one night when a supposedly stranded guy knocks on the door asking to use the telephone. Julia clearly watched enough old horror movies and is smart enough not to keep the front door shut, but the visitor refuses to go away and gradually fills Julia up with fear. The night ends tragically, when Julia suddenly stands face to face with a perpetrator in the hallway. Five years later, she's an eternally traumatized woman who seeks the help of Jill Johnson (the stalker victim of the original became a counselor) and her savior John Clifford; the former cop turned private detective.

Addition spoiler warning: in the paragraph here below I will most likely reveal essential plot aspects from both the original and the sequel

"When a Stranger Calls Back" is an adequate film and definitely guarantees some moments of genuine suspense. What I don't understand, however, is that many people seem to prefer the sequel over the original. I couldn't disagree more, mainly because the script of the original film is at least a dozen times more plausible in every imaginable department. First and foremost: the killer. The 1979 killer, Curt Duncan, was a 'realistic' psychopath. He stalked a girl and spent time in prison. He failed to fit into society and slowly found his way back to the girl for revenge. The psycho in this case is a ventriloquist, a master of disguise, a melodramatic philosopher and we're supposed to believe he left Julia alone during five whole years even though the police never picked up his trail? What kind of pathetic killer does that? Then there's the completely implausible return of Carol Kane's character Jill Johnson. It's already hard to accept that she became a psychological counselor after what happened to her, but now she helps another young girl who's going through pretty much the exact same ordeal as she did? Plus she's a lousy counselor, since you definitely don't encourage a manic depressed girl to buy a gun. Everybody complained how the middle section of the original nearly ruined the entire film, as it exposed the psychopath's whole persona and thus made him less menacing. Maybe so, but the middle section of the sequel definitely exaggerates in doing the complete opposite. Fred Walton attempts to make his villain so mysterious and introvert that it simply becomes ridicule. The ventriloquist act is downright pitiable and just a tad bit grotesque. There are numerous little details that don't make sense, but they're not immediately noticeable thanks to the good performances and compelling atmosphere. The more you contemplate about the story, though, the sillier it gets.

Starts off great...then falls apart

[preppy-3 · 5/10 · 21 March 2004]

A babysitter named Julia (Jill Schoelen) is home with her charges asleep upstairs...and hears a knock at the door. A man says his car has broken down and he needs to use the phone (you never see him--you only hear his voice through the door). She offers to place the call for him and finds the phone is dead. She lies and said she placed the call. He leaves but comes back later and is angry and somehow knows her name...

The opening 25 minutes of this are great--tense and frightening. Even Schoelen's bad performance can't hurt it. Then the story cuts to 5 years later with Schoelen still traumatized and Jill (Carol Kane--reprising her role from the first movie), now a college counselor tries to help. She calls in John Clifford (Charles Durning--also reprising his role) to help.

First off it is connected to the first film but Kane's character was happily married with kids at the end of the first film. Now she's single and a counselor. (????) The acting is so-so. Schoelen is terrible; Kane walks through her role and Durning tries but has no character to work with. Also, like the first, this has a great opening and ending--but a very dull middle.

The ending is great--especially when Kane goes one on one against the killer but the very ending is terrible. We're told the killer's name--but that's it. We never find out why he's doing all this and what he did with the kids--it's VERY annoying to end a movie that way. Also, we never see his face (the one time he's shown full face it's covered in black makeup).

So--this is worth seeing for the opening 25 minutes and the ending--but skip the rest of it. I'm giving this a 5.

Not if you have a weak heart !

[nicholas.rhodes · 4 February 2003]

I managed to get a DVD of this from the USA - it's not available anywhere else. Picture and sound quality are superb - put on the DVD and play sound through the hi-fi or home cinema at high volume !! Every sound will scare you out of your wits. Continuous tension is maintained from beginning to end and there are alternating periods of silence and violent sounds ( even a door closing is frightening ). This means that throughout the film you are in a state of continuous nervous tension, for this reason I don't think it is recommended for those who have a weak heart!

My logical mind discerned a few holes in the plot and several things unexplained - what happened to the 2 children - why was this man persecuting her - how did Charles Durning manage to find the culprit so quickly - why did the baby sitter shoot herself of was it someone else etc etc........ This said, these considerations are secondary when you consider the principal aim of the film is to provide undiluted suspense to the viewer and to have him or her feeling edgy throughout !!

Also the ending is superb as is the disguise of the culprit. Ideally, one would have wished a slightly longer film which explained the character of the culprit a bit more and provided a clue to some of the "open" points listed above, but despite this, the film rates very highly with me. I have not yet seen the original film but after seeing this one, I'm going to doubtless enjoy that too.......in fact come to think of it I'm quite a fan of those films featuring burly American actors such as Charles Durning and Brian Dennehy ..............

The best version of 3 movies 1979, 1993 and 2006

[huynhcongkhanh · 7/10 · 25 January 2022]

I watched the 1993 version a long time ago but didn't finish it. Years later I tried to search but could not find but only the 2006 version I consider quite disappointing. I found this movie by accident today. I'm glad to know the ending of the movie.

This movie is suspenseful from start to finish. The 1979 and 2006 versions weren't as good as this one either.

I'm getting myself a private number.

[lost-in-limbo · 7/10 · 27 May 2008]

Just like its modest predecessor it's a moodily atmospheric on-edge thriller that's just as good, if not better than its inspiration. Basically the same-setup and story structure (it's ringing off the hook), but writer / director Fred Walton (who directed and co-penned the original) competently pulls it off again. Lucky Walton illustrates another blindingly chilling and unbearably taut opening that drips with intensity and intrigue. Simple, but unquestionably effective. Something about the tone is creepier and dark, and it never lets the viewer get comfortable because it seems to stay there. Even then it really plays more like an open-wound, slow-burn mystery, but none of that lingering dread evaporates after the terrific opening. It's much more persistent, and the killer is kept in the shadows and emit's a disturbingly unnerving awe. He's a weirdo (a perfectly eerie Gene Lythgow), but there's no real reasoning for his obsessive tormenting of the traumatised girl (a beautifully sensitive performance by Jill Schoelen). This leaves some logic holes in the plot, but there's a little more novelty to it and it doesn't feel as loose. Coming back for seconds (returning from the original) are splendid turns by Carol Kane and Charles Dunning. Walton's exceptional direction is well drilled and it's passively shot with proficient positioning. The score stays strong, by inducing a spooky and suspenseful essence. This can be appreciated with its beautifully constructed nerve-wrecking conclusion.

This is worth a watch.

[Nazz86 · 7/10 · 9 August 2018]

This movie is quite good, it has several unique aspects and keeps you on your toes. I enjoyed it thoroughly and would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys scary movies.

Many plot twits, unpredictable, and the acting was good.

Nothing over the top, realistic, and well made.

7/10.

When a Stranger Calls Back (4/10)

[skybrick736 · 4/10 · 25 August 2016]

The sequel to the hit horror movie When a Stranger Calls was given the prototypical title that many horror film sequels contained in the 90's, by adding a subsequent word, in this case "Back". When a Stranger Calls Back is a made for TV-movie that was just another rehash of what we have already seen with the first. The film's helm is led by the same man who created the first, Fred Walton, but even he couldn't really save his work given the chance. Carol Kane and Charles Durning aged and didn't have the screen presence they did and the first and the new edition of Jill Schoelen wasn't a great choice as the main female lead.

The most cringe worthy aspect of the film though is towards the end when the killer becomes more part of the story line. His ability to blend in any environment was corny and laughable at times and just didn't provide any creepy angles to the film. Even when the film picks up after the initial dull periods it just doesn't have enough suspenseful juice to satisfy a fan of thrillers or horror. What the film doesn't even come close to holding a candle to is the introductory phone series that the first one perfected and this one tried to duplicate. Skip the sequel to When a Strange Calls Back, the remake of the original is actually for once a better watch.

One of the Best Chillers

[235SCOPE · 10/10 · 25 May 2000]

I don't understand how this movie has been rated a mere four-point-something (as of May, 2000) on the IMDb. I assume it's because there are people out there who detest to be frightened and are stupid enough to use this criteria to rate horror films. Blah with them.

To me, this is one the most chilling, frightening films I have ever seen and, being a horror film fan, I can safely say that I have probably seen more horror films than most people. (Note: I am also discriminating about horror films and don't think they are all equally great.)

Clearly, I am not alone in the belief that this is an excellent movie because the opening scene in "Scream" is obviously based on the opening set piece in this one, as well as on a similar scene in "When a Stranger Calls". There are differences between the "Scream" and "WASCB" scenes, though, and the main difference is that "Scream" ingeniously interlaces humor and shock while "WASCB" goes for relentless mounting tension, with its main goal to creep the bejesus out of the audience, at which it thoroughly succeeds.

"When a Stranger Calls Back" is a little gem and Fred Walton is one of the few directors who truly understand how to build and sustain tension. He proved it in the terrific "When a Stranger Calls" and, later, in excellent TV movies like "I Saw What You Did" and "Murder in Paradise". Here as in some of his other projects, Walton shows a knack for letting the fright build on the merits of the story and its twists, for letting the viewers know that something horrible is about to happen and playing with their expectations of when, how and to whom. Usually, what happens is not what he's been telling you would happen, so the horror builds inside your head and, as we know, that's the best kind. It's not graphic, it's worse, it's in your thoughts and it usually lingers there, like cobwebs...

I have shown the DVD of "WASCB" to many friends, including people who are not particularly keen on horror movies, and they all agree that it's an excellent, very scary film. Don't pay attention to those who put it down and try it. And if you can, watch it at night, when it's quiet out there and the lights are out and the kids are asleep.

It's not the same stranger calling, but it's an equally decent movie.

[Vomitron_G · 7/10 · 24 October 2011]

It's not often that a sequel comes along more than a decade after the original and simply gets it right. Perhaps the main reason for success in this case, is that both original and re-make were written and directed by the same guy, Fred Walton, so my guess is this guy knew what he was doing. This sequel sets up the same narrative structure as the first film: we get a very tense & well-executed opening 20 minutes (very similar to the first film, but with a different outcome), then during the middle section (5 years later) the story meanders, broadening things a bit. And near the end, we get suckered into another suspenseful climax. This time it's the lovely Jill Schoelen who gets antagonized as the babysitter unaware of what she's getting herself into. We are presented a different killer this time, one a bit more implausible perhaps, but he's cuckoo enough to make him creepy. Carol Kane (as Jill Johnson, the surviving babysitter of the first film; now a university counselor) and Charles Durning (as Detective Clifford) both return in this sequel, and that was a good choice to cast them again. Jill helps mentally scarred Julia (Schoelen) through this difficult time, while Clifford tries to track down the killer. Once again not aiming to shock with bloodshed and/or nudity, Walton focuses on telling a story injected with some suspense and having his capable cast deliver decent performances. Without a doubt, if you've enjoyed the first "When A Stranger Calls" (1979), then this sequel will be a worthwhile watch also. Not a bad accomplishment for a made-for-TV production from the nineties.

Outstanding opening, so-so rest of movie

[tex-42 · 5/10 · 29 July 2006]

When a Stranger Calls Back is a sequel to the 1979 film starring Carol Kane.

In this go around, Julia is a teenager babysitting for two children. During the night a man starts knocking at the door, trying to get her to let him in under the guise that his car has broken down. Julia refuses, but the tension keeps building as the voice tells her he has seen someone moving around upstairs, and that she should check on the children. She naturally runs to check on the children, only to find them gone. She then runs downstairs, and outside to find no one there, but the voice calls out to her again and she runs inside to find the shape of a man with his arms outstreched to get her. Julia then runs outside again into the arms of the parents who she was babysitting for, as her tormentor vanishes with the children.

The movie then flashes forward five years where Julia is in college, and being stalked again. She seeks out the help of Jill (Kane), the survivor of the first film, who is now a counselor at Julia's college. Jill enlists the help of her policeman friend from the first film to find the stalker before he can get Julia. However, Jill herself soon becomes his prey.

The movie drags heavily in the second act. The stalker's motives are never explained, nor does there seem to be any connection to Julia's first stalking. We never learn what has become of the children, and the ending comes up to fast, without letting things settle down first. This is definitely good for a TV movie, the opening alone is as good as or better than most typical horror films, but so much is left unexplained as to seriously frustrate the viewer.

Very good sequel

[The Creeper · 10/10 · 5 March 2002]

When a Stranger Calls Back is one of my Favorite movies. I like it not only because it deals with a very Psychotic, original, and Creepy Killer, but he really expressed his feelings in the "poem" like speech he gives towards the end.

The only thing I did not like about the movie was the game the Innocent characters seem to create the whole plot into. Other than that, this movie is top of the line, and it is shocking to me the bad review this movie has picked up.

It is not just the bad reviews and comments that annoy me. It's the message or insult they all carry: This movie has nothing to do with the original! SO WHAT! A lot of Classic movies (House II, as well as the "Leprechaun" sequels) had Very little, if not nothing, to do with the original.

This is one of my Favorite movies that I watch over and over again and if you are a Horror fan, I am Almost Certain you will also.

My Score: 10 out of 10

People who liked this movie might like: Puppet Master, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Slumber Party Massacre, Sorority House Massacre, The dead hate the living, Halloween, Army of Darkness, Scream 2, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and Hideous!. For more recommendations, please check the other movies I have commented on by clicking on my name above this Comment Section.

A good movie but hard to watch...

[DVDZombie · 7/10 · 25 May 2009]

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?

Not bad.

[dagonseve · 5/10 · 4 June 2010]

I realize how classic the 1979 version was, and I know how scared some people were during the infamous, "The call is coming from inside your house!" line...but let's be honest, that urban legend has been around for far longer than that film, and 1974's Black Christmas had a scene with that exact scenario. The 2006 remake was probably one of the most pitiful attempts at a remake I've seen in recent years, even securing a spot next to the Prom Night remake. 1993's sequel to the original, however, was surprisingly decent. Carol Kane returns to play the role of Jill, but this time, as a detective. It's really not all that bad for a made-for-TV movie...it certainly has its intense moments. Fred Walton directed the film - the same man responsible for the 1986 slasher April Fool's Day.

Not a bad follow-up to the original. Give it a shot!