MovieChat Forums > When a Stranger Calls (1979) Discussion > One of the best because it 'went there.'

One of the best because it 'went there.'

posted 17 years ago by Engelhaft
41 replies | jump to latest

Let me explain what I mean by saying that it "went there."
For the past eighteen years , or so , the horror/suspense/thriller genres have suffered because they've been too "politically correct." They always stop short of delivering the goods , so to speak.

*possible spoilers*

Rarely in recent films do you see children being murdered. They're usually saved at the last minute or totally off-limits of being killed at all because it seems too shocking for the audience.

This film "went there" because of the fact that the children were actually murdered and that made this movie very "real" and truly horrific.
It's things like this that makes a horror movie a horror movie , not a predictable , watered-down , formulaic movie that we see all of the time nowadays.

I also like how I couldn't really predict what was going to happen next. I can always figure out what's going to happen next in the horror films of today because the directors have studied and copied from the horror films of the past instead of being original.

I haven't seen the remake but , let's just say I'd rather see a "real" film with great acting as opposed to the latest teeny-bopper actress wearing a pound of lipgloss and talking like a valley girl.

Everything about this film is great. The music is on point and the acting is fantastic.

Man kann auch ohne Hund leben, aber es lohnt sich nicht.

[–] I_am_worst_at_what_I_do_best 15 years ago

I agree. BTW, in the remake the children survive.

H2 isn't Michael. Sherlock Holmes isn't Sherlock. Atleast they've got Batman right

[–] novastar_6 15 years ago

I know, in the new one, the children live, the killer does NOT return looking for Jill, only in her psychotic mind, and the killer only seems to target stupid women. When am I supposed to be scared?

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

And who does Duncan target in this that isn't a Stupid woman?

Children are killed Off Scene in the remake, just as they are in this.

[–] Karnivore 14 years ago

A child's shot in the head in 'In Bruges'

[–] i_am_something 14 years ago

M (1931) directed by Friz Lang features a child murderer.

This happens. This is something that happens

[–] my_sweet_agony 14 years ago

The first time I watched When a Stranger Calls was a few years ago and It was the remake. I have to say that it really wasn't that bad. they just chose to spin the movie a different way. I agree that it is weird that they did not include the rest of Jill grown up but I thought they covered what she was like before quite well. There were some really great scenes in there as well, the opening sequence for starters which shows that the stranger has done this same thing many times before. I also like that they included that she was a runner and trained very seriously and had some great shots of her having to run through the woods and it worked into the movie. I think remakes if not thought of as remakes can stand on their own if stopped comparing them to the origionals and seen as they are... their own movies.

Okay that over does anyone else agree that in the beginning of the movie the mom to me feels like she couldn't really care for the children and I think that her acting was kinda really off. I don't know maybe it is just me.

[–] HenryCW 14 years ago

Her scene as the runner was in fact the most meaningless scene in the context of the film. In the film, Jill ran to the guesthouse and later ran back again to the mansion, but nothing happened at either place. So nothing really depended on whether she was a good runner or not and so her training scene was totally irrelevant.

[–] my_sweet_agony 14 years ago

To you it may seem useless and I can see how you think that but to me it shows more into her as a teenager and that she has a life. It could easily be argued though that the stranger was going to try to attack her own the way to or back from the guesthouse and she was to fast for him. Either way I love how films inspire the watchers to discuss about the films good or bad.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 13 years ago

In the Remake the Kids Jill's babysitting Survive but is established he's killed Children.

We don't actually see or get to know the kids killed in the original either.

Their both good films but I prefer the Remake but that one the entire film is a suspense thriller, just just it's gloried Prologue. To pre-judge it as a

teeny-bopper actress wearing a pound of lipgloss and talking like a valley girl

Is not fair at all, Camilla Belle is a very good actress and the film is the only legitimately suspense film I've seen in recent years.

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

[–] novastar_6 13 years ago

Is not fair at all, Camilla Belle is a very good actress and the film is the only legitimately suspense film I've seen in recent years.

You don't see a lot of movies do you? There's no suspense here, we KNOW from the promotional ads before the movie even came out that she is going to be perfectly safe until the cops tell her he's in the house, which was what, an hour into the movie? By that time we don't care if she gets killed or not, it'd give the movie something worth seeing.

[–] Kimrubymoon 8 years ago

Absolutely. Nothing can compare to the original. The remake should've not even had the same title. It was an insult.

[–] stayprettystockholm 12 years ago

Um, I know you think you're "cool" for liking an old movie like every other pretentious movie snob here, but you're not. I have never seen a horror movie from today starring a "teenybopper wearing a pound of lipgloss and talking like a valley girl". even if she was.... so? point being? isnt that exactly how most if not all of the old heroines were (Carol beign the obvious exception)? and obviously for someone who seems to take such (unoriginal) pride in loving old movies over new, you sure seem pretty ignorant about how new ones work. or else, you dont pay one bit of attention to them, because you have the actresses today totally confused with the old ones.

nor do you seem to have an understanding of what "acting" is. if she is supposed to talk like a Valley Girl or some strange mix of Creole-Chinese, SHE WILL DO IT. if the makeup artist makes her wear gloss or a layer of powder, SHE WEARS IT. And I hope you're not referring to Camilla Belle because that sounds nothing like her performance (no shock, you probably saw it once and didnt pay much attention because it forces you to think instead of making killers pop out of every corner to capture your interest) and obviously you dont know much about young girls- that seems pretty realistic for a young babysitter.

oh, and by the way, the remake is much better. I'll admit this one is more realistic but Camilla Belle was great with what she worked with and it was much more suspenseful. Stop bashing new movies just because it's "hip" to, and try actually WATCHING them and forming your own opinion, instead of what your cool hipster film snob friends tell you.

And another thing, you CAN always guess what happens in the old ones for exactly what you said. nothing shocking. Besides, Black Christmas, WASC, Halloween, etc. all have very very similar plots. Nothing shocking, once again.

"I do pretend I am a princess, so that I can try and behave like one."

[–] Kimrubymoon 8 years ago

Wow...do you have something against older people who remember things differently from you? We all are a product to some degree of our generation and its place in time. Wait 20 years....you'll know what I mean.

[–] ian-wr 12 years ago

Couldn't have put it better myself.