When a Stranger Calls

2006 "Whatever You Do, Don't Answer The Phone."
5.1| 1h27m| PG-13| en
Details

Far away from the site of a gruesome murder, a teenager named Jill Johnson arrives at a luxurious home for a baby-sitting job. With the children fast asleep, she settles in for what she expects to be an ordinary evening. Soon, the ringing of a phone and the frightening words of a sadistic caller turn Jill's routine experience into a night of terror.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

SunnyHello Nice effects though.
Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.
Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.
Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
adonis98-743-186503 During a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller. To be honest i don't get why so many people hate this film except the fact that it's a remake but it's better than half of the awful Texas Chainshaw remakes, A Nightmare on Elm Street and the god awful The Mummy remake. The acting was fine, the scares even tho not amazing they were pretty good and Camilla Bella tries her best and for the most part i think she did a great job and besides Simon West has made way worse garbage than this believe me. (8/10)
sarahnoel1897 I've seen this movie quite a few times, and I especially love watching it around Halloween. But the only reason I came here to write this review is because I just watched it again today and IMDb got rid of discussion boards so I can't say it there. Sooo, why has no one mentioned how far fetched it is that the "stranger" managed to get Tiffany all the way up to the 3rd floor bathroom without Jill even noticing? Lol
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-
Jacqueline Avis This is quite different to the original, they can't really be compared apart from the names and general situation being the same. But, the 15 mins suspense of the original is extended throughout this film once it gets into it. The house is creepy, the music builds the tension and I think it's refreshing to not have all blood and gore but just get a film that makes you jump and makes you tense. I love it and actually can watch it over again because of how atmospheric the house is. The only downside for me is that I don't really buy Camilla Belle in the role, I don't think the acting was up to par, and as she carries the whole film I think we needed to buy into her fear more. But all in all, it's a well made film with, as I said, loads of atmospheric tension.