User reviews

This is a decent teen horror film that does a good job building suspense. It would be great for a teen scary movie sleep over. What has it on my horror movie playlist however is the house. I absolutely fell in love with the house in this babysitter being terrorized by a stranger in the phone flick. The house is spectacular and I actually dream about it...it's suspended staircase, the inner courtyard with birds...it's location private but near the water. Yes, it is all about the house and it keeps it on my list. Otherwise this is kind of a slow build suspense film.

The first time I saw this movie, I enjoyed it because it did put me on the edge of my seat. However, every time I've tried to watch it since, all I can focus on is how bad of an actress Camilla Belle is. She delivers no emotion with most of her lines and when she does manage to show a sliver of emotion, it's barely halfhearted and very awkward. My suggestion would be to watch it once and then forget about it.

I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.

The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.

The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.

Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.

While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.

Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.

On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.

It's just another unimpressive remake.

* 1/2 out of ****

Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-

I haven't seen the original (I thought it was a short, but IMDb stats the running time of the 1979 movie at 97 minutes), but the concept worked better back then. I don't mean that it's not scary getting ... scary phone calls! It just doesn't work that well with the technology nowadays (and one of the "major" scares or revelations is just plain stupid)!

That's not to say that this movie is a complete mess. You have great production values and teenagers will surely get excited about this movie. But there is not enough scare/story to keep you on your toes or that justifies the running time! So while it's nice to watch, there is not much to it!

Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.

Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)

I'm not even get creative with the review. it sucked.

The use of this amazing house, waste of time. It was a distraction by the director to give you something interesting or pretty to look at.

Camilla Belle has about as much charisma and screen presence as my last yeast infection.

Simon West's DGA card needs to be confiscated.

I hate whoever greenlit this.

I did not pay to see it. I snuck in.

Hollywood please stop.

Seriously, no more garbage.

I know alot of people don't care for this film but I think it's one of the best remakes in my opinion. Let's face aside from the first 20 minutes the original was pretty unwatchable it was followed by a Superior showtime sequel and now remade into it's best form. Taking the originals opening and stretching it out for 90 minutes makes for a simplistic, edge of your seat, achingly suspenseful nightmare. Similar to Halloween in its form and ambitions. Camilla Belle is awesome as the young babysitter forced to work at a gorgeous house in the middle of nowhere to pay for her cell phone bill. Upon arriving she's told the children are asleep but as the night goes on there are strange occurrences and creepy phone calls with the voice of a disturbing Lance Henriksen. It all leads up to a mostly satisfactory finale as the killer and Jill have a face off. The movie is directed stylishly with gorgeous, immersive cinematography and a solid lead performance from Camilla Belle.

Budget: $15M Box Office: $67M

8.5/10

A suspenseful thriller that does not keep you still until 20-25 minutes in the film. At first, I think that it was building tension. But the "action" was not that intense until the last 15 minutes I guess.

I want to mention that I watched this film about 5 times, of whom the first time was when I was a lot younger than now.

Back then, I really liked the film. It was intense for my then standards and creepy as well, because I could imagine how scary could be If I would live a similar situation. It really touched my naïve psychology.

Now, being a little bit older, and of course watching it for the fifth time, I can tell for sure that it's a little bit boring. This argument is not fair, because since I've watched it so many times, I knew every detail of the film, so definitely it wouldn't surprise me.

I also want to mention that this is a remake of a 1970s film that I've not watched yet, so obviously I can not compare these two films.

(+) Pros

*Very beautiful photography and directing.

*The house was big, isolated and lost in the mist. Absolutely perfect for these type of films, although it can be some times a little bit cliché.

*The protagonist was not perfect, but cute.

*The reveal 20 minutes before the ending, at least the first time I watched this, was very cool and scary as well and since I haven't been watching horror films back then, it wasn't predictable to me at least.

Note: By today's standards, and with all the horror films that keep releasing one after another, maybe for a person that has not watched the film, can be again predictable. I'm not sure anyways.

*Although it's a remake and its plot isn't original (there is no parthenogenesis in art), I personally like these type of films. When it has to do with a stalker that suffer from psychological problems, and harrasses a girl. Very typical plot, but still, I'm into it.

*I like that this story actually, with the babysitter, is an urban legend, and it is portrayed pretty good.

*I liked the scene in the greenhouse. Maybe the second most intense scene in the whole film.

*I personally liked the fact that there wasn't so much talking. I mean, of course there is talking, but I enjoyed more the silent scenes. It gave an alternative creepy tone.

(-) Cons

*I would prefer to not see the face of the killer.

*I think that the part with protagonist's friend was a little bit unnecessary. I know that there was a background, but the conclusion was not important I think. I feel that they just wanted to put something extra. This is not neccessarily bad, but I was kinda thinking of it. I do not consider it bad, technically.

*In the beginning the flow of the plot was very slow, and I had in my mind that "It builds tension". In reality, the tension would come and go.

*There were a lot of jump scares that made on purpose. They were very cliché. The one with fire, the one with music, the one with mannequin... they were very basic jump scares, that they felt that they had to put them into the film, so it could be labelled "horror" by force. Basically, there wasn't creativity...

*Conclusion*

To be honest, it's not a bad film, and I feel that it is very misunderstood. I think that my rating and my review are basically of my thoughts now. Good or not, I've watched it a lot of times, like I cited, so there wasn't surprise to me. If I would watch today the film for the first time, it could get a 7/10. I personally recommend it, because it's one of my childhood horror films since I'm millenial.

Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is babysitting two children in a fancy isolated house, when a stranger insists calling her in the phone. She decides to telephone to the police, to trace the phone call. When the officer on duty tells her that the call is being made from inside the house, Jill freaks out and tries to leave the place with the children.

The beginning of the 1979 "When a Stranger Calls" is one of the scariest and most realistic thrillers I have ever seen. The story is excellent, and the performances are stunning. In my opinion, the famous 'Scream' ripped-off the introduction of this film. This 2006 remake is watchable, but director Simon West spoiled an excellent story with a typical Saturday night broadcast predicable movie. The secret of the original film was the claustrophobic environment associated to a realistic plot. The option of this director was to use a huge house, with people coming and going (or vanishing), breaking the tension. Camilla Belle has a pretty face but she is very weak in this dramatic role. Further, her character has the most unreasonable attitudes, for example leaving a house protected by a security system to move to the guest house, or calling the hidden children to escape with her. My advice: see Carol Kane in the original version. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Quando um Estranho Chama" ("When a Stranger Calls")

One sentence to sum up everything: Don't Watch this Movie. If you're still curious, watch the trailer since it has everything you need to fully enjoy this movie.

After weeks of watching many movies in year 2006 - without doubt, this movie is one of the worst and is an utter disgrace to Hollywood. The movie has failed in all aspects but most profoundly in its lacking of the real story line. The story line is somehow a replica to very common horror movie (you got bad man out there and start running around with not clear idea: WHY? WHY? WHY?).

There are a lot of questions that the director should answer in this movie, or at least in the end of the movie - but in fact, nothing is answered. The whole content of the focus is simply running around like crazy while there is really no twist (utter boring).

Great disappointment...........

just don't watch!

Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!

This film is just another bad remake of a remake. The original film (concept and plot) was a scary little classic called "Black Christmas" and it was released back in 1974, five years before the original "When a Stranger Calls" came out and Black Christmas is STILL the best of them all - even to this day. And wouldn't you know it, they are remaking Black Christmas for a December 2006 release and will probably make a mess of it too. If you want to see what a true scary film is supposed to be, and one that doesn't explain every little detail but instead leaves much to your imagination, check out the original BEFORE the remake stinks up the theaters this Christmas. This remake of "When a Stranger Calls" was worse than the original and the original was bad enough.

Im a big horror fan and I quite enjoyed this remake. With all these horror remakes floating about I think this is one of the better attempts.

I watched it with my two little sisters and I think it made it even better as they were quite scared. Also with the shouting at the screen "Dont do that!", "Not that way!", etc. I thought there were some good little jumpy moments and it built the tension well.

Camilla Belle is absolutely stunning in the lead role and a very good actress - So she holds your attention well.

Overall a decent film.