Ed-Shullivan If you were not aware of it, this was Tom Hanks very first film where he received a film ending credit. I guess a lot of future stars made their debut in a low budget stinker of a wannabe horror film. In this film the director, Armand Mastroianni, just would not relent in his attempt to build up suspense and then continually let us down with a simple "oh, you have got to be kidding! Again?" The young and attractive actress Caitlin O'Heaney who plays the bride to be Amy Jensen believes she has a stalker following her and her friends and recent acquaintances are being murdered one by one by her unknown stalker which we get a few glimpses of, but who is he?I honestly felt as if I was sitting on my royal throne constipated, waiting for something to happen, and as my suspense is displaced with discomfort waiting for a long overdue bowel movement suddenly I hear a little plop and realize the plop results in nothing more than the size of a peanut which has caused so much discomfort. In the case of "He Knows You're Alone" the agony continues throughout the 94 minutes (much longer than my discomfort waiting for a BM) and then the end of the film FINALLY comes and I ask myself "you have got to be kidding?!!!"Don't waste your time seeing Tom Hanks in his film debut, he was much more impressive four (4) years later in director Ron Howard's 1984's film Splash.

Wizard-8 It's kind of hard to believe that Metro Goldwyn Mayer, even in 1980, would get involved with a slasher movie. But MGM was really on the skids around this time, so maybe they thought they good grab some of that box office gold the slasher movie genre was generating then. I don't know if the movie made a profit or not, but I imagine that audiences who saw the movie back then were quite disappointed. It's fairly well produced for this genre, and director Armand Mastroianni does occasionally during the stalk/slash sequences put in a little zing. But the movie for the most part is surprisingly boring. Part of the reason for that is that there is little of the essential staples found in other examples of the genre, namely gore and sexual elements. But a larger reason is that the movie is relentlessly padded. Scene after scene goes by that moves the (thin) plot little to no advance at all. The characters are also bland and uninteresting, especially the antagonist, who is given almost no personality at all. The icing on the cake is that the antagonist's fate at the end is left kind of unexplained. While some viewers may find the movie of some interest to see an early role by Tom Hanks, I much preferred seeing an early role by Steve James of the "American Ninja" franchise instead.

LeonLouisRicci Early "Slasher" Entry following "Halloween" (1978) and made the same Year as "Friday the 13th" (1980). A Good Title and the Opening Scenes are Inviting but from there it has Pacing Problems and although there are Numerous Kills, only one or two are in any way Memorable or Ground Breaking.The Acting ranges from Bad to Good, in Fact, Tom Hanks' Feature Film Debut had His Character Slated for a Slashing but Cut Not so because His rather Brief Appearance was so Likable.The Editing is Clunky and the Movie Shows Little in Articism and is only Slightly Removed from its Cloning. The Decision to Rip-Off the Striking and Signature One Note Piano Style from John Carpenter is so Similar as to be Counter-Productive.Surprisingly Bloodless for its Type and the Gore is Minimal. Overall, Worth a Watch for Horror Fans and to see Tom Hanks Entrance, but other Viewers Outside the Genre could Consider Leaving this one Alone.

zombiefan89 That opening was great! It was the old Hook cliché,but they made it into a twist! I'll admit, I don't even think I want to go to a movie theater for a while after seeing that! It's creepy how easily the person behind you can off you! I must say the title alone almost turned me away, thinking it was a rip-off of the original When a Stranger Calls. I hear "Halloween clone" a lot when hearing about the movie. It's probably that chilling music. It's distinctly reminiscent of Micheal's theme. The acting is spot on and believable. The murder scenes are by no means expected and the killer seems to pop up out of the blue, as he should! All and all, I'd encourage people to give this movie a chance! I feel this movie didn't get the proper recognition it deserved back in 1980s.