Dagon I realize how classic the 1979 version was, and I know how scared some people were during the infamous, "The call is coming from inside your house!" line...but let's be honest, that urban legend has been around for far longer than that film, and 1974's Black Christmas had a scene with that exact scenario. The 2006 remake was probably one of the most pitiful attempts at a remake I've seen in recent years, even securing a spot next to the Prom Night remake. 1993's sequel to the original, however, was surprisingly decent. Carol Kane returns to play the role of Jill, but this time, as a detective. It's really not all that bad for a made-for-TV movie...it certainly has its intense moments. Fred Walton directed the film - the same man responsible for the 1986 slasher April Fool's Day.Not a bad follow-up to the original. Give it a shot!

Coventry The original "When a Stranger Calls" from 1979 was a dynamite and effectively petrifying little horror sleeper. Why? Because of its very simplistic but nevertheless fascinating concept of a perverted maniac persistently stalking a defenseless babysitter through sinister phone calls. Even though the more routine middle part couldn't hold a candle to the masterful opening twenty ones, the wholesome should definitely be regarded as a modest and influential genre classic. And the last thing you can say about writer/director Fred Walton is that he exploited the success and promptly produced a series of inferior sequels. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is actually a rather belated follow-up, but unmistakably one that perfectly mirrors the original film. This second, made for television production, is even pretty much identical with the same narrative structure, atmosphere-building, lead characters and portrayal of the villain. There's the brilliantly tense and gripping opening, the tedious and somewhat annoying middle section and the short but powerful shock-climax. Cherubic and warm-hearted young babysitter Julia is babysitting one night when a supposedly stranded guy knocks on the door asking to use the telephone. Julia clearly watched enough old horror movies and is smart enough not to keep the front door shut, but the visitor refuses to go away and gradually fills Julia up with fear. The night ends tragically, when Julia suddenly stands face to face with a perpetrator in the hallway. Five years later, she's an eternally traumatized woman who seeks the help of Jill Johnson (the stalker victim of the original became a counselor) and her savior John Clifford; the former cop turned private detective. Addition spoiler warning: in the paragraph here below I will most likely reveal essential plot aspects from both the original and the sequel"When a Stranger Calls Back" is an adequate film and definitely guarantees some moments of genuine suspense. What I don't understand, however, is that many people seem to prefer the sequel over the original. I couldn't disagree more, mainly because the script of the original film is at least a dozen times more plausible in every imaginable department. First and foremost: the killer. The 1979 killer, Curt Duncan, was a 'realistic' psychopath. He stalked a girl and spent time in prison. He failed to fit into society and slowly found his way back to the girl for revenge. The psycho in this case is a ventriloquist, a master of disguise, a melodramatic philosopher and we're supposed to believe he left Julia alone during five whole years even though the police never picked up his trail? What kind of pathetic killer does that? Then there's the completely implausible return of Carol Kane's character Jill Johnson. It's already hard to accept that she became a psychological counselor after what happened to her, but now she helps another young girl who's going through pretty much the exact same ordeal as she did? Plus she's a lousy counselor, since you definitely don't encourage a manic depressed girl to buy a gun. Everybody complained how the middle section of the original nearly ruined the entire film, as it exposed the psychopath's whole persona and thus made him less menacing. Maybe so, but the middle section of the sequel definitely exaggerates in doing the complete opposite. Fred Walton attempts to make his villain so mysterious and introvert that it simply becomes ridicule. The ventriloquist act is downright pitiable and just a tad bit grotesque. There are numerous little details that don't make sense, but they're not immediately noticeable thanks to the good performances and compelling atmosphere. The more you contemplate about the story, though, the sillier it gets.

krorie "When a Stranger Calls Back" is really a sequel to "When a Stranger Calls" and not just a remix. The 2006 "When a Stranger Calls" is actually a remake of the first twenty or so minutes of the original 1979 version which was the superior part of the film. The 1979 original drifted aimlessly for the middle third of the movie before regaining much of its momentum for the final third.The made-for-cable "When a Stranger Calls Back" has some excellent scenes that do actually scare the heebie-jeebies out of the viewer. The use of the door rather than the telephone during the first part introduced a new aspect of the crazed psycho, that he could throw his voice. For this viewer the creepiest part occurred with Charles Durning encountering the monster in the alleyway. The cinematography with the camera zooming in on the creature all in black lurking in the darkness showing his blazon eyes before closing them for a full blackout is truly amazing. The angle of the shot showing Durning attempting to discover the hidden evil with the noir-like rain silhouetting his features is a stroke of cinema genius.That the producers were able to reunite two of the key figures in the original after fourteen years makes "When a Stranger Calls Back" even more relevant as a sequel. Carol Kane and Charles Durning reprise their roles as babysitter Jill Johnson (Jill as in kill) and John Clifford respectively to great effect. The chemistry between the two is still present."When a Stranger Calls Back" is also more believable than the other two Stranger films. For instance, the babysitter does check the children first thing the way a real babysitter would do. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is not as brutal as the other two. In the made-for-cable sequel the children simply disappear. In the other two, there is no weapon found, meaning the the killer ripped the bodies to shreds using his bare hands. If you enjoyed the 1979 flick, you should enjoy this one and the 2006 remake. All three are above average for mad slasher type suspense films.

ccthemovieman-1 The headline above seems to sum up some of the other reviewers' opinions of this film and I totally agree with them: I liked this sequel better. I will always remember this film for the first 20-25 minutes which really scared me the first time I saw it. It gave me the creeps, and always will if I don't watch it too often.After that, the movie settles down, and the excitement leaves, but it still keeps you interested, picking back up again at the end with another suspense scene.This is a "scare" movie - a sequel - that works although there are a few noticeable holes in the storyline. I liked the camera-work in here with the closeups of the door lock or the phone, the slowness of camera movement here and there to build suspense, etc. The ending, in which the killer blends into a wall, is very neat.The main actors are interesting to watch and a main plus is the lack of profanity, especially surprising with Charles Durning in the film. The "R" rating had to be for a couple of topless waitress scenes.Jill Schoelen gets third billing and she's the star of the movie. Carol Kane, the star of the first film: When A Stranger Calls, helps out on this case, too, and it's nice to see her again.