Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

superjack-11832 I remember the details of how I first came into contact with this film. I had read that a scene in a "SpongeBob" episode referenced this film. I did some research into it. I read it was very influential, despite being rather obscure. I asked for it for Christmas in 2015. I got it, and on New Year's Eve, I and my mum and dad sat down to watch. At the time, all I knew was that the narrative was in 3 parts, with an opening, midsection and ending. I knew what the opening and ending entailed, but not what the midsection entailed. I'll compare what I felt about each section initially and after my reassessment.The opening 23 minutes, I will admit, are the strongest part of the film by far. There is strong menace throughout, aided by a beautiful location, very effective music from Dana Kaproff, a terrific performance from Carol Kane, and brilliant photography from Don Peterman. After this part finished I wondered "what takes up the midsection?"With the 54-minute midsection, my feelings were initially somewhat (but not totally) negative (though I probably would have felt better not knowing that Carol Kane's character would return). This part initially held my interest, though after 30 minutes I was wondering "when will the film return to Carol Kane?". One of the first things I noticed was that the killer, Curt Duncan, was portrayed in an almost-sympathetic manner. According to IMDb, this is because the character was based on a socially awkward acquaintance of the director's. I was extremely surprised the director chose to do this, for obvious reasons. Now, however, I think it is fairly well-paced and I think it works better if you have knowledge about how long this midsection lasts and if you have patience, and I had neither. Colleen Dewhurst definitely performed very well in her role. She's no conventional middle-aged woman. Charles Durning also provides a worthy performance in his role.The final 21 minutes definitely hooked me. It replicates the brilliance of the opening segment almost perfectly, and the startling revelation at the end took me fully by surprise.There are other elements I believe deserve recognition. First, its innovation. It mixes horror elements and crime-drama elements to great effect, producing a film I find deserving of its cult status. The problem with the detractors is that they expect a conventional film. This is not conventional in the slightest.The only criticism I have is that it leaves too many things unexplained and there are sometimes errors or factual improbabilities. For example it is never explained how someone as frail-looking as Curt could have broken into a house (unless a window had been left open) and literally rendered two children's bodies unrecognizable with just his bare hands and without making a single sound. Or how he is able to locate Jill and her house from just a newspaper article. Or how Durning knew to go to Jill's house to save her. Or how Curt can dial a phone and speak from just above where Kane is, without her hearing. These detract from my score. The frailness of Curt is forgivable though: the actor was terminally ill, he and the director were friends and the director refused to bow to pressure to recast him, being a loyal friend.To round it up, I feel that this film is worthy of an 8.Additionally, this film was not made in response to "Halloween". In fact principal photography began before "Halloween" was even released. The real story is this: the two producers of this film saw the original short at the cinema and went to the production company with plans to expand the short to a feature-length film.

MissSimonetta Were this a short film that consisted only of the first twenty minutes, I would not hesitate to give it at the very least a 9/10, if not a 10/10. However, after the initial scene, the film loses its way, meandering with little focus and nothing resembling a protagonist. Who is the main character? Surely not Carol Kane's babysitter, as she is in the film for all of thirty minutes. Neither the detective pursuing the killer, the hostile but still sympathetic woman forced into helping trap the killer, not even the killer himself are good leads either.There are some suspenseful moments throughout and there is one very clever scare in the last five minutes, but if you're curious about this movie, do yourself a favor: stop the film before the first half hour.

Rainey Dawn The first time I saw this I was a pre-teen or young teen - must have been the very early 1980s then. The film was nightmarish to me then, still gives the the creeps today. And yes I was a teen babysitter.Those phone calls in the beginning still haunt my thoughts... and the film gets better from there - the last 15 minutes are just as terrifying.Big questions have been raised about how a man can use his bare hands in murder and rip apart the kids. The kids were a 4 1/2 year old boy & 3 year old girl - we are talking about a full grown mad man. BUT this seems to bother some viewers because they are unsure or seriously doubt the could really happen. I myself really don't know if it really is possible.Stalker-murderer phone calls? I do know that the original Night Stalker did make phone calls - so I know this much is possible.This film a nightmare for parents and babysitters alike... there are real life madmen.8.5/10

markcope1981 jill johnson is babysitting for a couple she is soon getting creepy phone calls from a man who wont stop calling they trace it to discover spoiler alert he has gotten into the house jill escapes but the kids aren't lucky soon the killer curt duncan is caught but breaaks free a pi is hired to find him soon he is after jill now a mother for the second time i liked this movie first and last part but that second half and people hate the remake pros likable people good acting terrifying score the killer is scary cons the second half overoll i like this film has moments pretty good except for the middle nothing happens at all unless you consider a pi flashing a picture of the lunatic asking about him action then jill returns it picks up pace becomes good again i like it carol kane is the saving grace in a sea of nothing