Appel dans la nuit

Better then the original in my opinion. This sequel picks up several years later after the events in the original. This time around Carol Kane and Charles Durning team up together to help a babysitter (Jill Schoelen) who is being stalked by a maniac. Just like the first one, this entry has an intense and scary start as well as an exciting finale, but unlike the first one this film's midsection is nowhere near as boring. Sure things slow down a bit, but the film is always interesting and has some rather original ideas.

Rated R; Violence, Nudity.

"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.

The opening scenes are enjoyably creepy and effective, creating a slow but undeniable increase in tension, where the limited dialogue feeds the babysitter's isolation and had me wondering what will happen next. Only, it doesn't explain how this stalker manages to get away when the parents return home and he is in the house. Maybe I'm missing something there but that just seems odd to me. But this is the only notable let down in the movie and it doesn't alter the creepy factor in any negative way.

Having now seen this a second time, my opinions of it have changed quite a lot. I really enjoyed the bond between Julia and Jill and the old dude is also a good extra. The build up of tension as the story progresses is a real feature, largely successful because of better than average acting, as well as clever directing and lighting. In fact I would say at times the actors commitment to their roles is quite excellent.

The word 'tight' comes to mind here, it's an efficient and effective production that I would recommend if you're looking for genuine scares without over the top violence and gore.

Before babysitters only had to worry if the phone rang, now they have to fear a knock on the door as well!

I'm a big fan of the first film and when I found out there was a sequel a few years ago I just had to watch it. The problem was I couldn't find it. Once I did find it I was a bit cautious about renting it. Would it just be a carbon copy of the original? Well yes it is and no it isn't. The format is the same but the writer Fred Walton has done his best to throw in many original ideas.

For those who don't know, the story follows a babysitter who is tormented by a stranger one night while babysitting. Five years later she is tormented again. The police wonder, is it the same person or is she just seeking attention? It's hard to say, but Jill (Carol Kane) who experienced the same situation years before believes her.

There are some problems with the movie. John Clifford (Charles Durning) who investigates the mystery solves it pretty quickly and hunts down the stranger just as easily. Also, the movie doesn't tie up all of it's plot threads nicely, like why the stranger does what he does, but that's okay because it leaves the viewer something to discuss with friends. What strengthens the movie is the amount of suspense in it. Not only are the first 20 minutes of the movie very suspenseful but there are a couple of good moments within the movie and the ending is superb (if not a bit unlikely).

Most times a movie will advertise itself as being so scary that you shouldn't watch it alone. But in the case of When a Stranger Calls Back (and the original When a Stranger Calls) the movie is much scarier when watched alone and not very scary at all when watched with another person.

I really liked this movie and I highly recommended it if you like movies that scare through suspense rather then gore. This movie is a nice change of pace from your typical theatrical horror release (it was made for cable). When a Stranger Calls Back gets a 7 out of 10.

Fred Walton did it again. Along with the original, When a Stranger Calls Back has one of the most frightening openings of all time. Unnerving, alarming, and damn scary. Once again my girlfriend could not watch this one. It's too bad that Walton made the same mistake that he did in the first one: failure to live up to the beginning. The rest of the movie isn't that good. Actually, it's not good at all. Although it's not as lacking in the middle as the original and this psychopath is more interesting than the last, it's still not good. I kinda wish that they would have delved more into his character. Watch it for the beginning alone and you will not be disappointed.