Let me explain what I mean by saying that it "went there."
-
Bub_the_zombie — 17 years ago(April 26, 2008 11:28 AM)
Haute Tension - 2003 feature a child getting killed via shotgun blast offscreen. Even tho it's off screen, we see the killer chasing after the kid, the camera only cutting towards the petrified mother's face as he shoots. The whole film disturbed me for days and that's not an easy feat. The 'head with the severed head scene' disturbed the beep out of me.
"You can't triple stamp a double stamp. You can't triple stamp a double stamp." -
novastar_6 — 17 years ago(May 19, 2008 02:05 PM)
Agreed, in the remake it got a PG-13 rating partly because the kids survivedthey weren't hurt at all. But in all honesty, I don't think this movie got an R rating because the kids were killedmaybe it was for the language, but maybe not, maybe it was for the 'nudity', maybe it was all things consideredbut I don't see this movie as an R rated movie, Halloween yes, Nightmare on Elm Street, yes, Black Christmas, surebut this movie? It doesn't seem to gelhowever as movies like House on Haunted Hill and Cape Fear from the 50s and 60s have proved, you don't need an R rating to be scary, you just need to use your head. That's what the writers did, they gave us a realistic situation of a homicidal maniac who kills children and stalks women, far more realistic than a guy who kills babysitters but won't put a finger on the children.
-
Mithrandir-Olorin33 — 14 years ago(November 08, 2011 11:43 AM)
The killing of the Kids isn't shown at all, and kids Are killed off screen in the Remake, just not the one's Jill's watching, so there is no logical reasons for that to effect the ratings.
The only thing Halloween 1978 has that When a Stranger Calls 2006 doesn't is nudity. -
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.