During a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller.During a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller.During a babysitting gig, a high-school student is harassed by an increasingly threatening prank caller.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 3 nominations total
Rosine 'Ace' Hatem
- Rosa
- (as Rosine Hatem)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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!
Critics and audiences both pretty much panned this movie, but I actually didn't think it was too bad! Even the critics I normally agree with thought it was crap, and I normally despise PG-13 "horror films." So this means one of two things: either (1) I'm too easily pleased, and my taste in movies has dwindled over the years, or (2) 'When a Stranger Calls' isn't nearly as horrible as it's made out to be. Now, to be fair, some of the criticisms of the movie are true--there's not much character development, and not much happens in the story. But man alive folks, how much were you expecting from a movie about a babysitter being stalked? Cut them some slack! As a former babysitter who was watching this flick late at night with the lights out, I can safely say the stalker dude was one creepy mofo! Who knows? I guess stuff like this just gives me the willies.
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
Yes, I admit I had fun watching this, and I don't care how big of a minority that puts me in. ;)
A suspenseful thriller that does not keep you still until 20-25 minutes in the film. At first, I think that it was building tension. But the "action" was not that intense until the last 15 minutes I guess.
I want to mention that I watched this film about 5 times, of whom the first time was when I was a lot younger than now.
Back then, I really liked the film. It was intense for my then standards and creepy as well, because I could imagine how scary could be If I would live a similar situation. It really touched my naïve psychology.
Now, being a little bit older, and of course watching it for the fifth time, I can tell for sure that it's a little bit boring. This argument is not fair, because since I've watched it so many times, I knew every detail of the film, so definitely it wouldn't surprise me.
I also want to mention that this is a remake of a 1970s film that I've not watched yet, so obviously I can not compare these two films.
(+) Pros
*Very beautiful photography and directing.
*The house was big, isolated and lost in the mist. Absolutely perfect for these type of films, although it can be some times a little bit cliché.
*The protagonist was not perfect, but cute.
*The reveal 20 minutes before the ending, at least the first time I watched this, was very cool and scary as well and since I haven't been watching horror films back then, it wasn't predictable to me at least.
Note: By today's standards, and with all the horror films that keep releasing one after another, maybe for a person that has not watched the film, can be again predictable. I'm not sure anyways.
*Although it's a remake and its plot isn't original (there is no parthenogenesis in art), I personally like these type of films. When it has to do with a stalker that suffer from psychological problems, and harrasses a girl. Very typical plot, but still, I'm into it.
*I like that this story actually, with the babysitter, is an urban legend, and it is portrayed pretty good.
*I liked the scene in the greenhouse. Maybe the second most intense scene in the whole film.
*I personally liked the fact that there wasn't so much talking. I mean, of course there is talking, but I enjoyed more the silent scenes. It gave an alternative creepy tone.
(-) Cons
*I would prefer to not see the face of the killer.
*I think that the part with protagonist's friend was a little bit unnecessary. I know that there was a background, but the conclusion was not important I think. I feel that they just wanted to put something extra. This is not neccessarily bad, but I was kinda thinking of it. I do not consider it bad, technically.
*In the beginning the flow of the plot was very slow, and I had in my mind that "It builds tension". In reality, the tension would come and go.
*There were a lot of jump scares that made on purpose. They were very cliché. The one with fire, the one with music, the one with mannequin... they were very basic jump scares, that they felt that they had to put them into the film, so it could be labelled "horror" by force. Basically, there wasn't creativity...
*Conclusion*
To be honest, it's not a bad film, and I feel that it is very misunderstood. I think that my rating and my review are basically of my thoughts now. Good or not, I've watched it a lot of times, like I cited, so there wasn't surprise to me. If I would watch today the film for the first time, it could get a 7/10. I personally recommend it, because it's one of my childhood horror films since I'm millenial.
I want to mention that I watched this film about 5 times, of whom the first time was when I was a lot younger than now.
Back then, I really liked the film. It was intense for my then standards and creepy as well, because I could imagine how scary could be If I would live a similar situation. It really touched my naïve psychology.
Now, being a little bit older, and of course watching it for the fifth time, I can tell for sure that it's a little bit boring. This argument is not fair, because since I've watched it so many times, I knew every detail of the film, so definitely it wouldn't surprise me.
I also want to mention that this is a remake of a 1970s film that I've not watched yet, so obviously I can not compare these two films.
(+) Pros
*Very beautiful photography and directing.
*The house was big, isolated and lost in the mist. Absolutely perfect for these type of films, although it can be some times a little bit cliché.
*The protagonist was not perfect, but cute.
*The reveal 20 minutes before the ending, at least the first time I watched this, was very cool and scary as well and since I haven't been watching horror films back then, it wasn't predictable to me at least.
Note: By today's standards, and with all the horror films that keep releasing one after another, maybe for a person that has not watched the film, can be again predictable. I'm not sure anyways.
*Although it's a remake and its plot isn't original (there is no parthenogenesis in art), I personally like these type of films. When it has to do with a stalker that suffer from psychological problems, and harrasses a girl. Very typical plot, but still, I'm into it.
*I like that this story actually, with the babysitter, is an urban legend, and it is portrayed pretty good.
*I liked the scene in the greenhouse. Maybe the second most intense scene in the whole film.
*I personally liked the fact that there wasn't so much talking. I mean, of course there is talking, but I enjoyed more the silent scenes. It gave an alternative creepy tone.
(-) Cons
*I would prefer to not see the face of the killer.
*I think that the part with protagonist's friend was a little bit unnecessary. I know that there was a background, but the conclusion was not important I think. I feel that they just wanted to put something extra. This is not neccessarily bad, but I was kinda thinking of it. I do not consider it bad, technically.
*In the beginning the flow of the plot was very slow, and I had in my mind that "It builds tension". In reality, the tension would come and go.
*There were a lot of jump scares that made on purpose. They were very cliché. The one with fire, the one with music, the one with mannequin... they were very basic jump scares, that they felt that they had to put them into the film, so it could be labelled "horror" by force. Basically, there wasn't creativity...
*Conclusion*
To be honest, it's not a bad film, and I feel that it is very misunderstood. I think that my rating and my review are basically of my thoughts now. Good or not, I've watched it a lot of times, like I cited, so there wasn't surprise to me. If I would watch today the film for the first time, it could get a 7/10. I personally recommend it, because it's one of my childhood horror films since I'm millenial.
Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle) is babysitting two children in a fancy isolated house, when a stranger insists calling her in the phone. She decides to telephone to the police, to trace the phone call. When the officer on duty tells her that the call is being made from inside the house, Jill freaks out and tries to leave the place with the children.
The beginning of the 1979 "When a Stranger Calls" is one of the scariest and most realistic thrillers I have ever seen. The story is excellent, and the performances are stunning. In my opinion, the famous 'Scream' ripped-off the introduction of this film. This 2006 remake is watchable, but director Simon West spoiled an excellent story with a typical Saturday night broadcast predicable movie. The secret of the original film was the claustrophobic environment associated to a realistic plot. The option of this director was to use a huge house, with people coming and going (or vanishing), breaking the tension. Camilla Belle has a pretty face but she is very weak in this dramatic role. Further, her character has the most unreasonable attitudes, for example leaving a house protected by a security system to move to the guest house, or calling the hidden children to escape with her. My advice: see Carol Kane in the original version. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Quando um Estranho Chama" ("When a Stranger Calls")
The beginning of the 1979 "When a Stranger Calls" is one of the scariest and most realistic thrillers I have ever seen. The story is excellent, and the performances are stunning. In my opinion, the famous 'Scream' ripped-off the introduction of this film. This 2006 remake is watchable, but director Simon West spoiled an excellent story with a typical Saturday night broadcast predicable movie. The secret of the original film was the claustrophobic environment associated to a realistic plot. The option of this director was to use a huge house, with people coming and going (or vanishing), breaking the tension. Camilla Belle has a pretty face but she is very weak in this dramatic role. Further, her character has the most unreasonable attitudes, for example leaving a house protected by a security system to move to the guest house, or calling the hidden children to escape with her. My advice: see Carol Kane in the original version. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Quando um Estranho Chama" ("When a Stranger Calls")
Did you know
- TriviaAlthough 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.
- GoofsTiffany 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.
- Quotes
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.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Another Top 10 Worst Hollywood Remakes (2012)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Cuando un extraño llama
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $15,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $47,860,214
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $21,607,203
- Feb 5, 2006
- Gross worldwide
- $67,062,123
- Runtime
- 1h 27m(87 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content