VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,1/10
50.423
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Nel suo lavoro come babysitter, uno studente del liceo viene molestato durante uno scherzo telefonico.Nel suo lavoro come babysitter, uno studente del liceo viene molestato durante uno scherzo telefonico.Nel suo lavoro come babysitter, uno studente del liceo viene molestato durante uno scherzo telefonico.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 3 candidature totali
Rosine 'Ace' Hatem
- Rosa
- (as Rosine Hatem)
Recensioni in evidenza
The first time I saw this movie, I enjoyed it because it did put me on the edge of my seat. However, every time I've tried to watch it since, all I can focus on is how bad of an actress Camilla Belle is. She delivers no emotion with most of her lines and when she does manage to show a sliver of emotion, it's barely halfhearted and very awkward. My suggestion would be to watch it once and then forget about it.
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.
I haven't seen the original (I thought it was a short, but IMDb stats the running time of the 1979 movie at 97 minutes), but the concept worked better back then. I don't mean that it's not scary getting ... scary phone calls! It just doesn't work that well with the technology nowadays (and one of the "major" scares or revelations is just plain stupid)!
That's not to say that this movie is a complete mess. You have great production values and teenagers will surely get excited about this movie. But there is not enough scare/story to keep you on your toes or that justifies the running time! So while it's nice to watch, there is not much to it!
That's not to say that this movie is a complete mess. You have great production values and teenagers will surely get excited about this movie. But there is not enough scare/story to keep you on your toes or that justifies the running time! So while it's nice to watch, there is not much to it!
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!
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAlthough 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.
- BlooperTiffany 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.
- Citazioni
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.
- ConnessioniFeatured in WatchMojo: Another Top 10 Worst Hollywood Remakes (2012)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Cuando un extraño llama
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 15.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 47.860.214 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 21.607.203 USD
- 5 feb 2006
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 67.062.123 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 27min(87 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti