1979 or 2006?
i just watched the orignal and liked it. the first 20 mins are great. how does the new one hold up to the orignal?
shareIt was dumb and predictable. Enough said.
If you can dance you can start a revolution.
MovieChat Forums > When a Stranger Calls (1979) Discussion > 1979 or 2006?
The new one is less of a remake and more of a "based off of" but it wasn't too bad.
shareHavent seen the old one but the new one was one of the worst movies I have EVER seen.
shareIloved the new one i screamed so much it was awesoem 3 in a half stars
sharei just watched the original my first time this morning and it scared me a bit it was great and i don't care to see the "remake" as i am boycotting all remakes
shareThe remake was aweful, how can you make a remake of an R-rated movie and make it a pansy PG-13? I like some remakes, well only one and thats dawn of the dead, but i still liked the original better. But they turned this remake into a pansy film, like most horror movies today it has no guts, and i don't mean literally. Hollywood is just filled with pansys now.
shareThe When A Stranger Calls 'R' back then could have easily been a 2006 'Pg-13' today. In fact there was more blood in the remake than the original. Normally I tend to take the original's side, but this original just sucked on too many levels. Other than the amazing first 20 minutes, this movie just fell flat on so many levels. Showing the killers face early on kills all of the suspense. Remake was a 6/10 for me, dumb, entertaining, and decently made. This was dumb, not entertaining, and the only thing going for it is 20 minutes. So I'd say a reasonable 4.5/10. Hollywood actually has been getting away with more and more gore by the way.
------------
You are being WATCHED right now...
Previously Maxelle/Nightmaric
A "pansy" remake? Sorry, but gore and guts are not required to make a movie good or scary. Take a movie and add as much blood and gore as you want but if the writing, directing, acting and script are bad, it's not going to be worth a crap.
Also, I never understood why this movie had an R rating, anyways. Showing some dude's rear end and a bed covered with blood-soaked bed sheets doesn't warrant an R-rating but I guess back in 1979, it did. If this exact movie was released today, it would have been PG-13. Plenty of "pansy" PG-13 horror/thrillers that are much better your favorite R-rated gore fests.
When life knocks you down, roll over and look at the stars ⭐
Sorry, but no gore doesn't mean its scary either. There is more non scary movies without gore, than there is with gore that are not scary. I rather have the violence, than the tamed up PG-13 crap more lately. Ever since 2000, we have been getting massive PG-13 horror releases. Most of them PG-13 are just crap. I can say at least half of rated R are better than a quarter of PG-13. That is even with the new PG-13 now coming out with two F-words now. For last at least 20 years PG-13 has had brief nudity too. Does not mean its a worthy movie. Being bored is not entertainment. I rather sleep than watch any build up horror movie or tamed up, no gore horror movie that is all some killer just chasing someone. Poorly made jump scares, that the director thinks actually scares people. Noise and music is not the best way to scare someone.
I am a gore watching freak!!!
If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.
Okay.
Respect what you have 🌌
From what I've read, the original was intended to be PG but only made R because of the children in the body bag scene. There's little violence (except at the very end), little to no profanity, really no intense scenes (for me, at least), and a somewhat nude guy on the floor of a bathroom that shows barely anything. If the PG13 rating existed in 1979, it would have gotten that rating.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
The new version is okay; All of the people who are ripping it to shreds should remember that the original is by no means a masterpiece. The first 20 min. like you said are great, and the last 10 are decent, but in between pretty much is wasteless filler.
shareI watched the remake last night and was very disappointed.
It was not anywhere near as scary. It wasn't a bad movie, but I felt I wasted my time and money seeing it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Easy, 1979. 2006's version was horrible. After seeing that one, I said in the theatre "Well that sucked". Everyone was howling in laughter.
The Godfather Part II:Greatest Ever
Hamburgers, the cornerstone of every breakfast.
"the hills have eyes remake is **bleep** crap! omg i just saw it, and it was soooo boring. damn what a waste!"
I wish I could speak more authoritatively on this, not having seen the original, but it seems to me the new THHE at least stuck pretty close to the spirit of the original. Plus, in reference to a few posts ago, it definitely WASN'T a "pansy-ass PG-13 remake."
Is there any horror movie a masterpiece? Okay then.
I am a gore watching freak!!!
If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.
1979: *****
2006: *****
This is hard because I love both films..
WASC 1979 is more chilling so I will go with the 1979 movie..more scarier.
MYSPACE
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&f riendid=387606505
There's no doubt in my mind that the original is better, the sequel to the original is even better. What a waste.
sharethe original was great....the 2006 version was pretty much unwatchable.
shareAnd not scary at all. The whole movie didn't make sense, there's a guy killing babysitters so little miss irresponsible is going to be babysitting, what bright parents she has. in the movie this guy kills one babysitter, one dumb bimbo, and a deaf housekeeper...none of that applies to me, he doesn't kill the kids, Jill survives and we know she'll survive, and at the end of it all she goes nutso in the hospital, it's a bad movie.
shareNo babysitter gets killed in either film.
shareumm actually in the 2006 version a babysitter gets killed in the first five minutes along with the children and later it is implied that there were even more before that. and the stranger(2006) can easily kill people without others hearing it is a HUGE house.
shareI didn't watch the original, but I love remake. It has very good action and new Jill Roberts was amazing. Of coure, I'm going to watch original, but I don't expect too much of it.
shareit's hard to say. the 1979 original does have a great opening. I saw it for the firs time right before i saw the remake in theaters and i think the opening still holds up as a nice suspenseful piece of filmmaking. that being said, even though the middle section is an interesting character study of the villain, it is insanely boring. I thought it just dragged and went nowhere and then we are treated to a visceral final 10 minutes. in the end it would make a better short film than feature film.
The remake is well made and shot well and does attempt to build suspense but it falls short as well. stretching the first 20 minutes of the original into a 90 minute film didn't quite work because there isn't enough meat to the story. I real say from the strangers reveal in the rafters up until she runs out into the arms of the police officer are very well done. if the whole film had maintained that tension it would've been great. i also hated the cliche ending in the hospital as well
Blah, blah, blah.
Always be yourself Because an original is worth more than a copy.