Let me explain what I mean by saying that it "went there."
-
andy_cookie — 17 years ago(September 09, 2008 12:46 PM)
Bingo.
I was just flicking through the channels looking for a film to watch and 'lo and behold' I saw 'When A Stranger Calls'.
Not realizing that a remake had been done I was quite pleased as this film holds great, chilling memories for me (I haven't seen it for years).
I switched it on and quickly realized that it was a remake.
I was disappointed but thought that I'd give it a chance anyway.
Wrong.
Firstly, they prolonged the entire first twenty minutes of the original and stretched it out into a whole movie!
Secondly, everything was predictable. If you had even glimpsed a recent 'teen slasher' flick then you would have yawned your way through this one.
Thirdly, the kids survive. Somehow, they manage to hide from a psycho killer and evade him with little effort - wow! Scary that isn't it?
Your point is SO well made Engelhaft. Who would expect kids to be murdered in any box-office horror flick made by Hollywood today? As soon as you see kids in danger in movies these days you KNOW that they'll get away safe and sound. Where's the tension in that? If you want to sample a bit of real tension in horror/thriller movies these days you have to rely on independents or non-US movies instead (thank the heavens there are plenty of those!).
They also missed out the entire detective hunt and the parts revolving around the killer (which IMO were great - I remember feeling a little sorry for the killer - which HORRIFIED me considering that he was a child murderer!).
Finally, they did away with the tense ending from the first film (the years later bit when she gets the call at the restaurant). How could they do that? This film was classic because the bookcase suspense scenes were both chilling and unpredictable. Why choose only to concentrate on and expand the first scenes and completely ignore the closing scenes? As far as I was concerned they were just as awesome.
Anyway, rant over. Just wanted to vent because I'm disappointed.
I might as well avoid remakes full-stop. They all tend to disappoint me.
Cheers.
-
-
smerd_70 — 17 years ago(January 29, 2009 08:07 AM)
'Who Can Kill A Child?'(1976) "went there" far more effectively than When A Stranger Calls. Same for the original Assault on Precinct 13.
I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book. -
SeijyuroHiko790 — 17 years ago(March 15, 2009 07:36 PM)
Well, yeah, not just as a more risky move but also as a suspense provider. When they jump to Jill's life as an adult you think about her kids and just get frightened at Duncan's presence. Then the ending happens.
Other films that portray child killing in one way or another are Assault on Precinct 13, Dawn of the Dead (extended version),y Don't Torture a Duckling, and probably dozens more that I'm forgetting. -
beckeis — 16 years ago(December 18, 2009 09:14 PM)
You sort of wait for that moment when the police say: "Oh, but the children are okay " and it doesn't happen. In fact, we realize, if she
had
gone up stairs to check on those children she would have been killed too. It's that after the fact that really gives me the chills. -
lobotomyboy63 — 16 years ago(January 26, 2010 02:49 PM)
There are some great moments in this film. For me, the single best unsung moment has to be the exchange:
Babysitter: What do you want?
Duncan: Your bloodall over me.
From that, he didn't just smother the kids or something, which is confirmed by the police later.
It really speaks to the mentally ill anglethis guy's in it for some sexual gratification, I'd say, which raises the creepiness exponentially. He probably did something perverted with the kids (torture, SM, etc.) and she's next. -
-
my_sweet_agony — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 03:22 AM)
The first time I watched When a Stranger Calls was a few years ago and It was the remake. I have to say that it really wasn't that bad. they just chose to spin the movie a different way. I agree that it is weird that they did not include the rest of Jill grown up but I thought they covered what she was like before quite well. There were some really great scenes in there as well, the opening sequence for starters which shows that the stranger has done this same thing many times before. I also like that they included that she was a runner and trained very seriously and had some great shots of her having to run through the woods and it worked into the movie. I think remakes if not thought of as remakes can stand on their own if stopped comparing them to the origionals and seen as they are their own movies.
Okay that over does anyone else agree that in the beginning of the movie the mom to me feels like she couldn't really care for the children and I think that her acting was kinda really off. I don't know maybe it is just me. -
HenryCW — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 11:03 PM)
Her scene as the runner was in fact the most meaningless scene in the context of the film. In the film, Jill ran to the guesthouse and later ran back again to the mansion, but
nothing
happened at either place. So nothing really depended on whether she was a good runner or not and so her training scene was totally irrelevant. -
my_sweet_agony — 15 years ago(December 30, 2010 04:53 AM)
To you it may seem useless and I can see how you think that but to me it shows more into her as a teenager and that she has a life. It could easily be argued though that the stranger was going to try to attack her own the way to or back from the guesthouse and she was to fast for him. Either way I love how films inspire the watchers to discuss about the films good or bad.
-
Mithrandir-Olorin33 — 14 years ago(November 08, 2011 11:40 AM)
In the Remake the Kids Jill's babysitting Survive but is established he's killed Children.
We don't actually see or get to know the kids killed in the original either.
Their both good films but I prefer the Remake but that one the entire film is a suspense thriller, just just it's gloried Prologue. To pre-judge it as a
teeny-bopper actress wearing a pound of lipgloss and talking like a valley girl
Is not fair at all, Camilla Belle is a very good actress and the film is the only legitimately suspense film I've seen in recent years.
"When the chips are down these
Civilized
people will Eat each Other"