Bob_the_Hobo Don't walk in to "The Caller" expecting any explosions or nudity, because you won't get it. (In fact I believe only one gunshot is used in the film).Frank Langella and Elliot Gould, arguably two of Hollywood's most underrated, star in this sleeper thriller that follows Jimmy Stevens (Langella), an energy analyst who had recently sent out damaging information to his company via e-mail. He realizes that he will most likely be executed because of it and he has a Private Detective (Gould) follow him on what will most likely be his last days, the Detective unaware that the man who hired him and the man who he's tailing are the same.I liked "The Caller", but it ran a bit slow. Langella and Gould have two of the most relaxing voices and demeanors on the planet (at least to me) so their many scenes of dialog were almost fascinating. But the lack of almost any action will probably ward off any Die Hard or Rambo fan. Use "Public Enemies" for an example; a fine film that may talk too much and not thrill enough.The central theme of the film seems to be death, and it is represented very well in the flashbacks of Langella's character. He is a haunted man who is ready to meet his maker, and ready to end it by outing the company he works for. Langella and Gould are perfect for their roles."The Caller" is a very good film if you are in a thinking mood, but not if you are ready for any amount of action. Kudos to all involved!

Mike B This is pretty feeble. Characters are introduced just to look nice. The little girl in the park, the attractive blues singer who I suppose the main protagonist is having an affair with – who are these people and why are they in the movie? There is no connecting the dots.There is a lot of wandering and meandering dialogue – particularly with his mother in the hospital. At the end of the movie as he lies dying, there is an aerial shot of the Statue of Liberty - why? There are a lot of other art shots for the sake of prettiness that annoy you as this film drags on. I was hoping for some kind of wrap-up but there was none.I like Frank Langella but the mood is very somber and this film has no real meaning to me.

ShawnInNJ This film is not about corporate scandal, suspense or mystery; all those elements were simply the vehicle to get to the point: Death & how one deals with inevitable death. The story is extremely contrived and overly elaborate, which became dull and frustrating because every single character, item or action is just a device to metaphor.At the end, the plot really isn't important nor the characters because the film intentionally presents every one as a wooden puppet without the slightest emotion or expression (The golden rule of filming art: do not smile, remain expressionless, and add bleak).It ends as you expect it to: The same death metaphor and the same dreadful indictment against the capitalistic brutalities in every other film.

Harrier25 This film is very different from the one characterized in the posted review. So different that I wonder if the reviewer watched the film or was told about it. The protagonist,Jimmy, beautifully acted by Frank Langella, was not seeking suicide. A contract murderer was hired by his company to stop him from doing further damage to the them. He was convicted in conscience by guilt over what his company was doing, which was gaining control of Third World nations and sanctioning ruthless acts against the people. Jimmy's friend Lulu helped him survive as a Jew in WW2 France. In a carefully written and photographed sequence, Lulu bears witness to the death of a civilian murdered by Nazis, thereby giving meaning and history to that death. Jimmy discovers through a newspaper article that Lulu has grown up to be a witness, a detective who sees and carries the stories of what he has seen. Jimmy hires Turlotte/Lulu (played by Elliot Gould with amazing subtlety) to bear witness to his life and death, thereby making Jimmy's act sacrificial. Jimmy was murdered by contract killers hired by an executive from the corporation. The blood money was paid by the executive buying the paintings of the contractor, an artist. (I always wondered who paid, and why they invested, enormous sums to mediocre artists for their drivel) There are more errors both factual and intellectual in the posted review, but if you have read this far I urge you to see "The Caller" as it is time well spent.