When A Stranger Calls(2006)

I was a little on the debate of whether Hollywood would be able to pull off yet another remake to one of the most chilling movies ever. First the casting was a bad sign, I was thinking this going to be another WB-teenager filled 12-year-old horror film like the Fog remake turned out to be. Then came the promotion for the film. I personally thought this was plagued by bad marketing; not that it was bad, it was over-publicized. They aired a TV spot every ten minutes on televison and with all those stupid trailers; it practically shows you the entire movie. Sony is good for bad advertising. Then it isn't even screened for critics, most of the time this = shitty movie. Comes Friday night, some buddies of mine wanted to go to the movies, so...I caved in and saw this.

I expected a REALLY bad movie, but I was shocked at how much I liked it. Not even closely as bad as I imagined.

MINOR SPOILERS

Jill Johnson must pay off her phone bill, which I believe she ran 200 minutes over, and babysits out in the woods at the Mandrakis' three level home...which was obviously built on a set. The home is amazing; censor lights, alarm systems, "nature" garden in the center of the home, guest house.

The two children are asleep upstairs, they're both getting over the flu. The quietness of her surroundings gives her time to catch up on schoolwork, but she wonders around the house instead. The phone calls begin, but not "Have you checked the children?", only heavy breathing. Her bimbo blonde friend, Tiffany, shows up and blah blah and then finally leaves...for good.

Basically it follows the formula from the opening 1979 film, ie: more phone calls, Jill contacts police, the calls are actually made from inside the home, etc.

THE FILM, I guess if you're in a quiet environment, I was lucky NO DAMN TALKATIVE TEENAGERS, then it can get under your skin and the atmosphere of the film creates a strong presence of suspense.

THINGS WRONG WITH THE FILM - The suspense that the film has always leads up to well nothing. Oh yeah! and seriously, when will writers stop using the cliche "cat" popping up scene??? Its annoyingly not scary and it feels like a waste with the effective score. The ending was typical and predictable. The film should have ended with the strangers face, but no we have to have that stupid "dream"-like ending.

THINGS THAT WORKED - Even though there is a few "teenagers" listed in the credits, this isn't a teen-slasher film. Most of the teens, other than Jill, have no more than like 10 lines. I was relieved to watch this. The atmosphere of the house is perfect. It really does set that "isolated" feeling. The stranger, I'm glad it wasn't the dad or the boyfriend, NOW THAT would have ruined the film. Actress Camilla Belle was actually "okay", but she is given just blah dialogue. I'm glad they picked someone fresh for this kind of genre, it wouldn't have felt the same if it was like Mandy Moore or something. Okay, now the violence; The film teases us with violence but it never gets there or they never show us much which actually in a way works perfect for this film. It would've spoiled the mood if they showed the girl in the opening actually getting murdered or something.

I DON'T KNOW. There's a lot of things I liked about this film that differ from the original. ONE MAJOR plus in the boring second act that the original had. This version was just a 95 extension of the opening scene from the beginning. Its hard to take these films seriously, but its a decent watch. Not at all horrible as critics have been saying.

3/5

I sneaked into this movie.
And i felt ripped off.
I thought it was horrible.

Me and my friends wanna go watch this sumtime next week. I dunt know much about it except the trailers.

Do yal lthink this movie is any good, or really bad?

Quoted from Antemasque I sneaked in...I felt ripped off...

Does anyone else see the irony here?

You should have asked for your money back  

Yeah I got a laugh out of Andrews post as well, I was going to post something similar but seems like you beat me to it Bert.

Haha. It was horrible. Trust me. The girl can't act. The movie is laughable. I'd rather watch the ever so boring Alone in the Dark.

I feel asleep during Alone in The Dark, only because the only things Tara Reid can do well is get naked and be stupid. Since her breasts have become ugly beasts her only quality to humanity is being stupid and that's Paris Hilton's profession so who knows where Tara goes.

If only every joke was at the expense of Paris, Tara and Michael Jackson. If those freaks didn't exist, I don't know if I’d ever laugh again. Is it me or is Michael’s last name kind of ironic as well... no?

Why did they feel remaking a bad movie with another bad movie would make a difference?

Quoted from bert Does anyone else see the irony here? You should have asked for your money back

I remember seeing a comedian doing an urban ;'you must be a redneck...' joke series.  The one that stuck out the most was:  "If you buy a bootleg DVD and then complain about the quality, you might be ghetto..."


Phil

Quoted from Antemasque I sneaked into this movie. And i felt ripped off. I thought it was horrible.

...and then we discover the reason the movie industry keeps jacking the prices of theatre showings is Andrew and his buddies ripping off the industry by not paying to see the film. That's like your dad owning a candy store and then showing your friends how to steal from it. Don't you realize that you've chosen to go into this industry? This is the final product of the screenplay that someone started writing (even though we've established it didn't turn out so good, that's not the point).When people sneak into movies (which they've always done), they only help to make the cost of movies higher so that the theatres can pay for the films they bring in. If you do get The Recluse (or any of your other dozen scripts posted or the dozens you'll write someday) produced, do you want someone sneaking in, stealing profits from your producer's pocket, so that when he reviews the income, he says, "Sorry, Andrew, this one didn't do so well, so we don't see doing another." While you and your friends sneaking in may think it's funny right now, all you're doing is hurting your future and those who want to go into the industry with you. I hope you get paid a percentage someday; that'd bring it home in a hurry.

Quoted from George Willson ...and then we discover the reason the movie industry keeps jacking the prices of theatre showings is Andrew and his buddies ripping off the industry by not paying to see the film. That's like your dad owning a candy store and then showing your friends how to steal from it. Don't you realize that you've chosen to go into this industry? This is the final product of the screenplay that someone started writing (even though we've established it didn't turn out so good, that's not the point).When people sneak into movies (which they've always done), they only help to make the cost of movies higher so that the theatres can pay for the films they bring in. If you do get The Recluse (or any of your other dozen scripts posted or the dozens you'll write someday) produced, do you want someone sneaking in, stealing profits from your producer's pocket, so that when he reviews the income, he says, "Sorry, Andrew, this one didn't do so well, so we don't see doing another." While you and your friends sneaking in may think it's funny right now, all you're doing is hurting your future and those who want to go into the industry with you. I hope you get paid a percentage someday; that'd bring it home in a hurry.

You brought it home well, George.

I could be off a little now but the last time I checked:

It costs approximately 6 million dollars in distribution costs alone to deliver the forty pounds of film reels to 3000 theaters for a full theatrical release.

Theaters get approximately half of all ticket sales. Then if the distribution company absorbs lab costs and distribution costs, which they often do with independent productions, they get their cut which is enormous.

Then the production company gets its cut. Then the costs must be met. Then, when the film turns a profit, comes the back end. Then the writers get their pittance. And that’s not figuring in taxes.

Ripping off the theater can break the lower level workers’ careers.

This is what i do (and i see your point George)

If the movie looks good i have no problem at all paying to see it.
If it looks bad and has bad review i usually sneak in. But if the movie is good i'll usually tell my friends and i'll end up seeing it again but i'd pay for it that time.

OMG. If the Recluse get's produced... wow. You think it is worthy enough for production. (I'm rewriting it now) I fixed errors and dialouge and added an extra scene in the beginning for character. I have much much more to do also.

I remember reading the Recluse at one point and knew it needed a lot of work, but I thought it had an interesting enough premise, and coming up with a marketable premise is a hell of a lot harder than writing it.

It's 10 bucks to go see a movie here, now I have been lucky to only see films I thought were good but seriously if a few kids sneak in and the price goes up I'm not really going to be angry with Andrew because he doesn't ruin anything for us.

I go to maybe 3 - 5 movies a year because most films look bad, the ones that look good I can usually wait 3 months for.

When A Stranger Calls Back (The sequel) probably coming soon.

Im in no rush to see this but what is the score like on this movie?
I enjoyed the original film a great deal thanks a lot to the one particular piece of music that came in whenever a threat was expected.

Apart from that, I cant believe they even remade this.
And coming soon the Wicker Man, The Omen and The Hills Have Eyes are on their way. Oh joy.

Quoted from Antemasque I sneaked into this movie. And i felt ripped off.

Well I guess you can say it stole 2 hours from your life that you can never get back. That's what a lot of people say when they saw a bad horror movie.