Llamadas tenebrosas

Canadian horror film starring Richard Chamberlain as a professor out to prove a conspiracy exists in a huge phone company as they cover up a mad killer that uses high-pitch frequencies on the phone to kill people. The movie resembles Coma with its thriller-like atmosphere and its one person against the world protagonist. As thrillers go, the film is pretty enjoyable, although it is definitely short on logic. You really will need to suspend some disbelief here. Michael Anderson directs(quite a ways down from directing Around the World in Eighty Days if you ask me...which you didn't) with some polish and flair, using the materials he is given to their best. John Houseman is somewhat wasted in the film, but his verbal reparte with Chamberlain is quite amusing. Chamberlain is adequate in the lead. The special effects are...well, not too impressive. Some of the death scenes are over-acted and over-directed, and unintentionally amusing.

On paper this sounds pretty uninspiring, but 'Bells' turns out to be an ingenious idea well-executed (a bit like Didier Grousset's 'Kamikaze' [1986] in reverse), that reunites the director and composer of 'The Quiller Memorandum'.

The script vaguely recalls 'Quatermass 2', is lively, quite witty in places and generous to the supporting characters (Gary Reineke, in particular, is visibly enjoying himself as the police lieutenant, who gets to develop as the film progresses), the Toronto locations are well used, and it all builds up to a satisfyingly explosive climax. One can nit-pick - Richard Chamberlain gets a lot of lucky breaks looking for information - but it certainly makes you pay attention every time yet another 'phone rings; did every single phone in Toronto - even the Mickey Mouse ones - have exactly the same ring tone in 1980, by the way?

Much more of a gap between the invention of the telephone and this movie, and the invention of the television and the movie Murder By Television, for some reason.....

I saw the cut version of this, which was still rated R surprisingly, despite there being no nudity, just a couple of not-too-bad cuss words, and some deaths that weren't too terribly horrific. This could hardly get anything worse than a PG-13 rating today. I'd be curious what was cut from the movie.

Anyway, a young woman answers a phone ringing in a subway station. Strange sounds come from the phone, and she begins having a seizure of sorts, blood drips from her eyes, and then she is forcefully blown away from the phone, while the receiver ignites in flames.

The young woman was a former student of Richard Chamberlain's character, an

environmental science professor, I think. Her father asks him to investigate her death, which he was told was a heart attack. Chamberlain learns about the phone from a bag lady, and gets some help from a woman painting a mural at the phone company's headquarters. Meanwhile, other people keep dying the same way.

One of the most amusing moments for me was when John Houseman's character drawled "I've earned it." Houseman had done some famous commercials for Smith-Barney saying "They earned money the old-fashioned way: they earned it" - with that same pronunciation. I don't know which came first, the commercials or this movie (I'd guess the former).

Around this period slashers seemed to be in-craze, but coming out where some fairly oddball horror mysteries and the 1982 feature "Bells" just happened to be one of those gritty change of pace experiments. Also known as "Murder by Phone" under a re-edited version. The curiosity is waiting around for the killer's method of weapon. Ingenious, but laughable. Electrocution by phone. And boy do the victims get some air! While it might have that body count formula, instead of something rather primitive, it laced the plot with industrial conspiracies and scientific jargon as an environmentalist professor goes about investigating the deaths, despite no one really believing him when he thinks it's a phone killing people. It did come off being low-key and clever in spots (a cynical script), but this didn't stop it from being rather stilted (romance sub-plot) and at times silly. The problem lied in between the murders, as it wasn't as interesting or captivating like it should have been. Therefore the idea isn't really realised and uneven in its suspenseful build-ups. It was something you might read from a Michael Crichton novel, especially with his interest in technology getting out of control. Richard Chamberlain putting his game face on was sturdy in the lead role and was good support by a classy John Houseman. Sara Botsford feels secondary, but the cast also bestows Alan Scarfe, Barry Morse and a small part for Lenore Zann. Director Michael Anderson's durable handling is slow-grinding, letting the story unfold and atmosphere bubble with sweeping camera-work and John Barry's ominously edgy music score. Sterile, but resourcefully unique 80s horror mystery.

"If man is going to control his future. His got to learn to control his machinery."

Given the title, you would expect 'Murder by Phone' to be a silly eighties slasher style flick...and that's actually more or less what it is. The most notable thing about this film is definitely the killer's modus operandi. Most slashers simply feature some guy with a knife, but the killer in this film has decided to go a step further than that and had developed a way to use an ordinary telephone as a murder weapon! Obviously, the whole thing comes off as being more than a little bit silly, but the way that the murders are carried out is amusing enough. The plot centres on these murders and takes the form of an investigative thriller, as our hero, Nat Bridger, begins looking into the death of one of his students. The film is never really all that interesting, but at least it's not boring and there's usually another murder scene just around the corner anyway; though unfortunately, they are pretty much the same. Director Michael Anderson does manage some fairly good moments of suspense, a couple of major characters have close calls (no pun intended) when speaking on the phone and there are various other bits and bobs to keep us interested. I can't say that this is a brilliant film, but it's at least worth a look.