Cuando un extraño llama

and i really wanted to hate it. i so adored the original and found it offensive that it was being remade, that whole 'you cant mess with perfection' idea in my head. i came away from it with the distinct impression that the director had only the highest regard for the original film and total respect for the filmmaker. the new version tries to update the story for the 21st century and actually has some interesting takes on how modern technology can be used for scary elements. the smart house motion sensored lights added a nice touch as did caller id when its not who it says it is! although they tried too hard to bulk up the story with unnecessary side nonense and the timing was off, i give the man high marks for effort and his obvious attention to the integrity of the original work.

Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again.

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!

A suspenseful thriller that does not keep you still until 20-25 minutes in the film. At first, I think that it was building tension. But the "action" was not that intense until the last 15 minutes I guess.

I want to mention that I watched this film about 5 times, of whom the first time was when I was a lot younger than now.

Back then, I really liked the film. It was intense for my then standards and creepy as well, because I could imagine how scary could be If I would live a similar situation. It really touched my naïve psychology.

Now, being a little bit older, and of course watching it for the fifth time, I can tell for sure that it's a little bit boring. This argument is not fair, because since I've watched it so many times, I knew every detail of the film, so definitely it wouldn't surprise me.

I also want to mention that this is a remake of a 1970s film that I've not watched yet, so obviously I can not compare these two films.

(+) Pros

*Very beautiful photography and directing.

*The house was big, isolated and lost in the mist. Absolutely perfect for these type of films, although it can be some times a little bit cliché.

*The protagonist was not perfect, but cute.

*The reveal 20 minutes before the ending, at least the first time I watched this, was very cool and scary as well and since I haven't been watching horror films back then, it wasn't predictable to me at least.

Note: By today's standards, and with all the horror films that keep releasing one after another, maybe for a person that has not watched the film, can be again predictable. I'm not sure anyways.

*Although it's a remake and its plot isn't original (there is no parthenogenesis in art), I personally like these type of films. When it has to do with a stalker that suffer from psychological problems, and harrasses a girl. Very typical plot, but still, I'm into it.

*I like that this story actually, with the babysitter, is an urban legend, and it is portrayed pretty good.

*I liked the scene in the greenhouse. Maybe the second most intense scene in the whole film.

*I personally liked the fact that there wasn't so much talking. I mean, of course there is talking, but I enjoyed more the silent scenes. It gave an alternative creepy tone.

(-) Cons

*I would prefer to not see the face of the killer.

*I think that the part with protagonist's friend was a little bit unnecessary. I know that there was a background, but the conclusion was not important I think. I feel that they just wanted to put something extra. This is not neccessarily bad, but I was kinda thinking of it. I do not consider it bad, technically.

*In the beginning the flow of the plot was very slow, and I had in my mind that "It builds tension". In reality, the tension would come and go.

*There were a lot of jump scares that made on purpose. They were very cliché. The one with fire, the one with music, the one with mannequin... they were very basic jump scares, that they felt that they had to put them into the film, so it could be labelled "horror" by force. Basically, there wasn't creativity...

*Conclusion*

To be honest, it's not a bad film, and I feel that it is very misunderstood. I think that my rating and my review are basically of my thoughts now. Good or not, I've watched it a lot of times, like I cited, so there wasn't surprise to me. If I would watch today the film for the first time, it could get a 7/10. I personally recommend it, because it's one of my childhood horror films since I'm millenial.

I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.

The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.

The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.

Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.

Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is babysitting two children in a fancy isolated house, when a stranger insists calling her in the phone. She decides to telephone to the police, to trace the phone call. When the officer on duty tells her that the call is being made from inside the house, Jill freaks out and tries to leave the place with the children.

The beginning of the 1979 "When a Stranger Calls" is one of the scariest and most realistic thrillers I have ever seen. The story is excellent, and the performances are stunning. In my opinion, the famous 'Scream' ripped-off the introduction of this film. This 2006 remake is watchable, but director Simon West spoiled an excellent story with a typical Saturday night broadcast predicable movie. The secret of the original film was the claustrophobic environment associated to a realistic plot. The option of this director was to use a huge house, with people coming and going (or vanishing), breaking the tension. Camilla Belle has a pretty face but she is very weak in this dramatic role. Further, her character has the most unreasonable attitudes, for example leaving a house protected by a security system to move to the guest house, or calling the hidden children to escape with her. My advice: see Carol Kane in the original version. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Quando um Estranho Chama" ("When a Stranger Calls")