mdnobles19 An extremely amateurish rip off of When A Stranger Calls but unlike the well filmed, atmospheric remake of the 1970's chiller this one has balls. Right from the beginning of the film it has the feeling of unease and dread with brutal and effective yet generic kills that were disturbing and gutsy. This movie has a very visibly low budget and less than impressive acting that were the movie's downfall but the body count was decent and the killer was sadistic and stopped at nothing to bring fear to this poor babysitter and the stalk sequences though handled in a silly amateurish way did bring some suspense and creepyness to the film enough to make you look over your shoulder especially if you watch it alone in your home. The acting was beyond atrocious thanks to a horrible script and unoriginal story but towards the end it seems like everyone tried their best to step up their game which led to an effective, harrowing finale which might make you think twice about babysitting. Overall it's obviously a ripoff, unoriginal, flimsy but its brutality, creepyness and ballsy nature will creep under your skin, sure it wasn't amazing but as a generic rip off of stalk and slash it isn't half bad. Rent it. Have zero expectations, leave your brains at the door, grab some popcorn and enjoy. 6 out of 10

bob_meg My first indication that this was a true DIY production was how it opened completely cold...no 55 studio cards, no, not even one! That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it got me wondering about this movie and if it was really a labor of love or a labor of cash. That answer quickly became apparent in the last half hour, but more about that later. It is plausible that the filmmakers wanted to do a completely no-holds-barred retelling of the famous Urban Legendy/When a Stranger Calls chestnut, and if their goal was to show us things we don't expect, mission accomplished.This has to be the ONLY film I have ever seen (out of tens of thousands) that features the "realistic" on screen killing of children. This is one of those areas I can't see any reason to go into, except to shock and sicken. Following that, there are many voyeuristic scenes of torture and bondage (as in the "please please don't hurt me, Mr. Bad Man" variety). While I'm not entirely averse to such scenes, these just seemed needless and gratuitous.The plot needs no elaboration, you've seen it a gillion time before. The only positive thing I will say about this lamely named C-grade copycat is that the performances by the teens (and their dialog) are very natural, and Rebekah Kochen is actually good to very good in eliciting your sympathies. Hopefully starring in this doesn't end her young career. The suspense aspect of it is pretty much diffused by the disgusting subtext.Watch this at your own risk, because, while it isn't "scary" technically, it will get under your skin and creep you out, if only for its unabashed luridness.

Firetears_X A lot of people find this movie to be something amazing, but I can't help but feel that the people voting for this film are people upset by the fact "When a Stranger Calls" didn't live up to their horror expectations.The producer must've got the entire cast and crew to come here and make "kick-ass movie!" comments because, unfortunately, no one with human taste would find this movie to be as good as they claim it to be.Watching this movie, I just can't help but feel this is done by a 17 year old dude who just learned a couple of new camera effects. The "special effects" in this film come up as high as weak lighting, twitchy cameras, and rain storms that doesn't even seem to cover an entire patio. Seriously, did these people use lamps and hose pipes for these effects? The deaths come up very short to today's standard creative deaths. Nothing but stabbings and slitting throats. And when I say nothing but, I mean it literally. It's 2006, at least someone could've burned! These stabbings (which looks VERY fake, by the way) just don't do for anyone anymore, it's not 1980 anymore.The characters are all predictable, and unlike it's alternate, "When a Stranger Calls" (which I think this title is only a lure for the emo-kiddies who were upset with the lack of gore from it's alternate), you have no reason to care for these characters. The protagonist, Trisha, comes up nothing bigger than the average blue-eyed teenage blondie with a hottie boyfriend, slutty attitude, and mistaken rep from the adults. She is the character we used to love to see get killed back in the early "Halloween" series. You know, back when characters were stereotyped. The only thing this movie is missing is the shower scene that literally turns into a blood bath.I do like the idea that this movie gives no mercy to the children. You rarely get to see children die, and if they do die, then you never get to see them actually get killed. It was actually disturbing but never done before. I doubt it'll start a new wave for the horror genre, but it's a good moment to look back on.The acting was... it was... unnoticeable. It's hard to throw a compliment or a complaint because I doubt you'll be paying attention. Not because the film itself is so engaging but because no one really cares about no name cast. I could easily talk about how the protagnist's, scared reactions and frightening faces come up super short but that would be like trying to prove to someone that a pickle is green.Overall, the only reason I might've given it this high of a number is because I was air-drunken enough to watch the fake ass looking slashes.

mfinsnakesonamfinplane When A Killer Calls has got to be the biggest ripoff released by Asylum so far. It's about a sexy babysitter on duty who receives spooky calls from a creepy voice who asks her repeatedly, "Have you checked the girl?" Naturally she has the calls traced by the cops (after having to perform some realistically unnecessary tasks -- hanging up when "he" calls, waiting ten seconds, and dialing *57). Sound familiar? Yeah, that's why I rented it, too.Well, it should. And I hate to say it, but this could've been more entertaining than the big-screen crapfest that was released around the same time if not for one fatal mistake -- Rather than revelling in B-movie ripoff glory, it tried to do something original. It tried to make the lead character sympathetic, rather than having clichéd, campy fun with her. Mind you, this could've worked with a talented actress. But she wasn't. Sure, she looked good, and she screamed, and cried, but . . . oh well, whatever.Then came the horrific ending. Not horrific in that it was horrifying, horrific in that it was BORING. The pacing up until that point (about an hour in) was campy, clichéd, and fun. Then it heads in another direction, and it veers away from just another dumb, fun slasher movie with a sexy "teenage" cast to a Hostel-esquire gore/borefest.I guess this falls into the "Oh well, whatever" category. The lead actress flubbed a line? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like reshooting it. We forgot to give the killer motivation? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like rewriting it. The pacing completely changes halfway through? Oh well, whatever, I don't feel like shaving fifteen minutes off. Continuity errors? Oh well, whatever.If you like this kind of movie (dumb, cheesy, predictable, campy splatter movie with sexy cast), then you'll be fine up until the ending. The ending is stupid, it's not fun, it's not scary, it's not campy or cheesy or quickly-paced. In fact, there was almost exactly five minutes of the character doing nothing but being tied up (and that's not a spoiler because it's on the back of the DVD) and looking around at the stuff in the room, then screaming, and . . . whatever.