I give this film extra points for killing the two little kids.
You've seen Guy Standeven in something because the man was in everything.

I think the issue with horror movies nowadays is that most will follow the formula pattern and the characters do things that we as audience members know they shouldn't be doing (especially when it's been spoofed and described in DETAIL in "Scream") so when we see this happening it ruins the suspension of disbelief. Like in the remake of When A Stranger Calls the baby sitter does
everything
you know not to do (like walking around in a dark room and then leaving the security of a locked house to go and check on a guest house where the lights keep going on and off and no one answers the phone), and so the audience no longer buys the whole scenario.
In the original WASC the viewer doesn't actually see the kids being murdered; we hear about it and get the description and then later
we see the killer in a flashback in the kids' room covered in blood
so it's our imaginations that fill in the blank. Same with the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre because a lot of viewers thought it was really gory but it was only the last few minutes that were really bloody; everything else was filled in by the viewer's imagination (which is sometimes scary than actually seeing anything). I myself thought that TCM was really gory until I watched one of the special features on the DVD and it was described how the movie wasn't as gruesome as many thought it was
, so I watched it again and they were right.
Engelhaft, I don't know if you've seen the remake of WASC, but if you do, I'd like to know what you think of it. I was cringing and rooting for the killer to get the main character.
But'Cha Are, Blanche! Ya'Are In That Chair!

Such a scary film. It's all great, but the first half-hour, with Carol Kane trapped in the house, it's really nailbiting.

Good post Engelhaft. A child dies on camera in Halloween III and many more off camera at the very end. A child is suffocated with a pillow in the 1992 Belgian film Man Bites Dog and a child is shot to death in the 1997 Austrian film Funny Games. Man Bites Dog is on Youtube right now!
Perhaps the most disturbing child murder is in the unrated version of Caligula. A baby is beaten against the stairs, I believe.

bit.ly/147IATS

It's not so much being "politically correct" but more about today's filmmakers worrying more about box office results, since murdering a child would instantly get a film an R rating, and R-rated films are generally believed to be less likely to make money than PG-13, PG, or G-rated films.
The 1980 George C. Scott film "The Changeling" has an on-screen murder of a child by drowning. It got an R even though it had no foul language nor any other violence.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Wowdo you have something against older people who remember things differently from you? We all are a product to some degree of our generation and its place in time. Wait 20 years.you'll know what I mean.

Um, I know you think you're "cool" for liking an old movie like every other pretentious movie snob here, but you're not. I have never seen a horror movie from today starring a "teenybopper wearing a pound of lipgloss and talking like a valley girl". even if she was. so? point being? isnt that exactly how most if not all of the old heroines were (Carol beign the obvious exception)? and obviously for someone who seems to take such (unoriginal) pride in loving old movies over new, you sure seem pretty ignorant about how new ones work. or else, you dont pay one bit of attention to them, because you have the actresses today totally confused with the old ones.
nor do you seem to have an understanding of what "acting" is. if she is supposed to talk like a Valley Girl or some strange mix of Creole-Chinese, SHE WILL DO IT. if the makeup artist makes her wear gloss or a layer of powder, SHE WEARS IT. And I hope you're not referring to Camilla Belle because that sounds nothing like her performance (no shock, you probably saw it once and didnt pay much attention because it forces you to think instead of making killers pop out of every corner to capture your interest) and obviously you dont know much about young girls- that seems pretty realistic for a young babysitter.
oh, and by the way, the remake is much better. I'll admit this one is more realistic but Camilla Belle was great with what she worked with and it was much more suspenseful. Stop bashing new movies just because it's "hip" to, and try actually WATCHING them and forming your own opinion, instead of what your cool hipster film snob friends tell you.
And another thing, you CAN always guess what happens in the old ones for exactly what you said. nothing shocking. Besides, Black Christmas, WASC, Halloween, etc. all have very very similar plots. Nothing shocking, once again.
"I do pretend I am a princess, so that I can try and behave like one."

Absolutely. Nothing can compare to the original. The remake should've not even had the same title. It was an insult.

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.
You don't see a lot of movies do you? There's no suspense here, we KNOW from the promotional ads before the movie even came out that she is going to be perfectly safe until the cops tell her he's in the house, which was what, an hour into the movie? By that time we don't care if she gets killed or not, it'd give the movie something worth seeing.

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"

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.

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.

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.

M (1931) directed by Friz Lang features a child murderer.
This happens. This is something that happens

A child's shot in the head in 'In Bruges'

This message has been deleted.

And who does Duncan target in this that isn't a Stupid woman?
Children are killed Off Scene in the remake, just as they are in this.

I know, in the new one, the children live, the killer does NOT return looking for Jill, only in her psychotic mind, and the killer only seems to target stupid women. When am I supposed to be scared?

I agree. BTW, in the remake the children survive.
H2 isn't Michael. Sherlock Holmes isn't Sherlock. Atleast they've got Batman right

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.

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.

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.

'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.