NOTE IMDb
5,1/10
50 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueDuring a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller.During a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller.During a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 3 nominations au total
Rosine 'Ace' Hatem
- Rosa
- (as Rosine Hatem)
Avis à la une
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.
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 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.
Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
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!
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!
While babysitting at an isolated Colorado house, a teen girl is terrorized by an elusive murderer on the telephone.
Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.
On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.
It's just another unimpressive remake.
* 1/2 out of ****
Remake of the 1979 semi-classic horror film basically takes the opening 20 minutes of the original film and stretches it out to fit an 87 minute time span! So it's pretty needless to say that the plot of this remake is pretty thin. There's little in the way of originality or interest in this movie. There's a lot of Camilla Belle wondering around a dark house wondering who's calling her and encountering all kinds of false scares. It all gets repetitious and routine after the first 30 minutes and never manages to muster up much in the way of suspense or chills. It certainly never reaches the intensity of the original film, especially since it wimps-out and changes one important plot point from the original. I guess we have the PG-13 rating to thank for that.
On the plus side there's an impressive set design and some dark atmosphere, unfortunately there's not much going on around it to save this remake from being sub-par. Belle's performance is pretty mediocre too.
It's just another unimpressive remake.
* 1/2 out of ****
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesAlthough the stranger is played by Scottish-born actor Tommy Flanagan, the phone-call voice is actually Lance Henriksen's. Henriksen fit the voice, whereas Flanagan fit the stranger's build.
- GaffesTiffany and her red Toyota Matrix get inside the locked gate to the Mandrakis residence without a code or being buzzed in to sneak in and scare Jill.
- Citations
Jill Johnson: [On phone] You really scared me, if that's what you wanted. Is that what you wanted?
Jill Johnson: What do you want?
Voice of the Stranger: Your blood all over me.
- ConnexionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Another Top 10 Worst Hollywood Remakes (2012)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Cuando un extraño llama
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 15 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 47 860 214 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 21 607 203 $US
- 5 févr. 2006
- Montant brut mondial
- 67 062 123 $US
- Durée1 heure 27 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant