Comwayon
A Disappointing Continuation
Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Nicole
I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.
laylastepford
There are two ways this film can be rated: on it's own or compared to the original. Whether you have seen the original version of this film (1979) or not, makes a big difference on the way you see this version of the film. For that reason, I will rank the film in both ways:(1.) On It's Own (If you had never seen the original):Acting: 16/20 Writing: 30/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 34/40Overall: 80/100 B-Review: Almost the entire film revolves around the babysitter, which means Camilla Belle takes the brunt of the acting in this movie. She's not a bad actress nor an outstanding one and did a pretty solid job. She was pretty believable in her role but she didn't do anything special with it. The most important thing I can say about her performance is that while it didn't add anything special to the film, it also didn't take any value or integrity away from it.She did have a supporting cast but I doubt that any other character (aside from the Stranger/Caller) was in the film for more than 5 minutes total. All of the supporting cast had similar performances, credible and loyal to their roles.The plot of the script is very accurate to the most common versions of the legend and does a great job turning that "short story" into a full-length movie, without losing any of the suspense. That being said, there wasn't too much creativity in the script, as most of it does come straight from the legend.The flow and pacing of the film go well with the overall suspense in the movie. The soundtrack was like the acting - appropriate but not outstanding.Overall this film was a good Hollywood-stylized take on the now- famous "babysitter" urban legend.(2.) Compared To Original:Acting: 14/20 Writing: 13/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 37/40Overall: 64/100 DReview: This version makes A LOT of references to the original - from keeping the same character names for the babysitter and parents of the children being babysat, to the babysitter taking ice cream out of the fridge when checking and "securing" the house.In addition, the woman who plays Mrs. Mandrakis physically resembles Carol Kane, the main detective in this film physically resembles the detective in the original and even the Stranger in this film physically resembles Curt Duncan from the original.Camilla Belle does a much better acting job than Carol Kane, undoubtedly.*Spoiler Alert!*This version of the film focuses solely on the legend itself, whereas the legend was only the first 20 minutes of the original film. As a result, this version is not nearly as creative and entertaining as the original. There is really something to be said about the originality in the script and the performance of Tony Beckley as Curt Duncan in the original film; These factors make the original a much more timeless-classic than this newer version, especially by comparison.The writing in this version took no risks, and the result was a more consistent script than the original but less of a long-lasting impression. By comparison to the first 20 minutes of the original film, this version only really improved in the acting department - otherwise it was just a longer version of the same thing with less impact.The Stranger in this version is also a let-down in comparison to the Curt Duncan character in the original. It's understandable that the newer version had a phenomenal performance to contend with, that would likely not be upstaged, but the decision to replace it with a Michael Myers type version instead was a real bummer.After seeing the original, you even miss the detective's performance as it was such a compelling character.*End of Spoiler Alert!*All of that being said, the newer version is definitely an improvement where you'd expect it to be the most, in the directing/editing/producing departments. This newer film is visually done in a much more stylized, Hollywood manner that has a lot of entertainment value. That being said, it loses some of the "authentic" look that the older version has, which is a shame as the "authentic" look worked better for this kind of scary story and added more of a timeless feel/quality to it.Overall this newer version really lacks in originality of script, characters and performance compared to the original - yet is still watchable as a tribute to the original legend and film. However, if possible, I'd recommend watching the newer version before watching the original version, so as to enjoy both more. (Otherwise watching the original will very likely ruin the newer one for you by comparison.)Overall Score As Original + Remake Together: Acting: 15/20 Writing: 21/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 36/40Overall: 72/100 C-
Python Hyena
When a Stranger Calls (2006): Dir: Simon West / Cast: Camilla Belle, Katie Cassidy, Brian Geraghty, Clark Gregg, Tessa Thompson: Horror film remake about fear that comes nowhere near close to the shocking effect of the original 1979 version where Carol Kane played the terrorized babysitter. Plot seems to stretch the effective first fifteen minutes of the original into the entire running time. A babysitter receives threatening calls and realizes that she may be being watched. Starts out fine with edge of your seat chills throughout but the third act bombs when the killer becomes nothing more than an object. He is a faceless villain whereas the original film it examines a frail individual with a tormented mind whom a detective struggles to bring down. None of that is present here because the goal of this farce is the lowest common denominator. Director Simon West who previously made the effective The General's Daughter as well as junk such as Con Air and Laura Croft: Tomb Raider focuses on the ominous features of the house, which is nice but the plot is greatly reduced to idiocy. Camilla Belle holds her own as the paranoid babysitter but he co-stars as as lively as blowup dolls. Katie Cassidy plays a school friend who drops by and dies. Brian Geraghty, Tessa Thompson and Clark Gregg are flat. Potential remake with a stranger with no motive other than to up the phone bill. Score: 3 ½ / 10
kapelusznik18
****SPOILERS**** Grounded for telling a fib, about her boyfriend seeing another girl in school, has pretty Jill Johnson, Camilla Belle, forced by her outrage father Ben, Clark Gregg, to end up babysitting at the Mandriks' Will & Allison, Arthur Young & Madeline Carroll, ultra fancy smanchy, with all the most modern conveniences, house for the evening looking after their two young children. At first everything is all right and groovy for Jill until she gets these strange phone calls followed up by heavy breathing and what sounds like someone blowing his nose that starts to unnerve her. It's not long after that Jill realizes that whoever is calling is at the same time watching her every move from outside the house. The problem for Jill is how to keep the heavy breathing phone caller from breaking in before the police come to rescue her and the Mandrakis children!We've seen it all before in the 1979 movie of the same title but this time around-in 2006- the action and tension just doesn't keep together like it did in the previous and far better version. Jill for her part is so ridicules in her actions in trying to prevent the stranger in doing her and the kids in she by leaving the door open and taking a walk outside in what looks like a major hurricane in fact makes it that much more easier for him to do it. The stranger is ironically played by two people one on the screen and actor Lance Henriksen, no stranger in playing movie psychos, as his voice which has to be a first, having two people play one character at the same time, in movie history.****SPOILERS**** Thowards the end the policeman whom Jill got in contact by phone Officer Burroughs, David Denman, finally was able to trace down the stranger by her keeping him on the phone long enough to put a trace on. And sure enough, he must have gotten that from watching the previous 1979 version of the movie, the crank or threatening caller is right in the same house that she and the kids are in! By the book or number horror movie where practically every move is telegraphed well in advance eliminating any tension or surprises in it. Jill in the end survives all the carnage but she's now a mental case in what she went through and seems descant to be institutionalized for the rest of her life.P.S I don't know if it was the real deal in making the film or I saw a defective version of it on TV but all the scenes in it seemed to have been filmed as if it was done backwards, as if shot through the reflection of a mirror, making whenever there was any text to be read, like the opening and closing credits, by watching it seem as if you were dyslectic!
SnoopyStyle
It's Fernhill, Colorado and the teens are having a big bonfire party. Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is forced to babysit for the Mandrakis after exceeding her phone minutes. The Mandrakis live in a big house. There are two sleeping kids (Madeline Carroll, Arthur Young), and housekeeper Rosa at the house. Jill starts getting weird phone calls. She's angry at her boyfriend Bobby (Brian Geraghty) and friend Tiffany (Katie Cassidy) for kissing. Tiffany crashes her babysitting gig and then disappears. The calls keep coming and Jill calls the police.Camilla Belle is really pretty but rather bland as an actress. It doesn't help that the movie relies so heavily on her being alone. Quite frankly, nothing happens for most of the movie. They don't even introduce the kids until late in the movie. It doesn't take advantage of the girl alone scenario with better atmosphere. It never gets to a scary place. It's a lot of phone calls and missed connections. The whole movie feels like a missed connection. The final section is filled with action but it's too late.
