Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Vomitron_G 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.

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.

Ryan_V Only reason it is 8/10 is because it is made for TV. It is a polished version of the original "When a Stranger Calls" 1979. The ending is brilliant and the beginning equally so. Imagine being terrorized by someone some 7 years later after you were already terrorized by the same person. Also add the fact that the stalker can get into your house when you are and are not home, and talk to you without you knowing where he is. The killer is what a killer should be, no remorse, no irony, no explanations, just someone wanting to scare and mutilate someone. No stupid psychologists and dumb jail scenes, this film, save for it being a second version of the 1979 edition, is original in substance and casting and definitely worth the time.

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.