Toronto85 'When a Stranger calls Back' takes us down the same path the original did with the psychopath harassing the babysitter initially, but takes a turn and makes this almost more chilling than the 1977 film. We meet Julia, a teenage girl who is babysitting two young kids. A man keeps knocking on the front door asking to use her phone because his car broke down. She writes his vehicle information down on a pad of paper, and puts it down and leaves the room. She is unable to call a towing company because the phones are dead! When she gets back to the pad of paper, everything she wrote down has been erased. The man outside claims to have seen someone walking around inside of the house, she looks into the living room.. someone dressed in black is headed straight for her! Sound familiar? It's a bit like the original, just without the phone calls or the man being upstairs. Julia survives and we flash forward five years. The children that night went missing and were never found, same goes for the man who was inside of the house. Julia is now living on her own near a college campus, still suffering from the effects of what happened that night. She looks in her closet and see's the shirt of the little boy (who she was babysitting) hanging up, and that's when she realizes that the psychopath is after her again. She gets in touch with Jill (Carol Kane), our heroine from the original film to help her through this. Jill gets John Clifford (the police officer from the first movie) to help her find the man as well, leading to an interesting story and a creepy ending.The psychopath in this sequel is nothing like Curt Duncan in the original. Duncan was simply deranged, this man is a master of illusion. He has the ability to be standing right next to you, but project his voice to make you believe he is outside your front door. He paints himself identical to an area of your apartment, so that you could walk right by him and not even realize he's there. That element makes 'When a Stranger Calls Back' an eerie and EXCELLENT film. It matches up well to the first one. Acting is great with Charles Dunning, Carol Kane and Jill Schoelen. I liked 'When a Stranger Calls' slightly more than this one for it's intensity, but this was really well done. Deserves a proper DVD release! 8/10

zombiefan89 First off, I must say the beginning was a masterpiece! That knock on the door was scarier than any phone call! I was about to rate it one of the greatest horror movies I had ever scene! ...However, the excitement died down to real lull towards the middle. Much like the first one, we see that same annoying private detective. Then, we have to learn about the psycho's back story. It follows the same pattern as the original to a "T". The ending was exciting, but it seemed to take too long getting there. If you liked the original, you'll love this one! It's more of a mystery and suspense thriller than an actual horror movie,with exception of that glorious first twenty minutes!

krorie "When a Stranger Calls Back" is really a sequel to "When a Stranger Calls" and not just a remix. The 2006 "When a Stranger Calls" is actually a remake of the first twenty or so minutes of the original 1979 version which was the superior part of the film. The 1979 original drifted aimlessly for the middle third of the movie before regaining much of its momentum for the final third.The made-for-cable "When a Stranger Calls Back" has some excellent scenes that do actually scare the heebie-jeebies out of the viewer. The use of the door rather than the telephone during the first part introduced a new aspect of the crazed psycho, that he could throw his voice. For this viewer the creepiest part occurred with Charles Durning encountering the monster in the alleyway. The cinematography with the camera zooming in on the creature all in black lurking in the darkness showing his blazon eyes before closing them for a full blackout is truly amazing. The angle of the shot showing Durning attempting to discover the hidden evil with the noir-like rain silhouetting his features is a stroke of cinema genius.That the producers were able to reunite two of the key figures in the original after fourteen years makes "When a Stranger Calls Back" even more relevant as a sequel. Carol Kane and Charles Durning reprise their roles as babysitter Jill Johnson (Jill as in kill) and John Clifford respectively to great effect. The chemistry between the two is still present."When a Stranger Calls Back" is also more believable than the other two Stranger films. For instance, the babysitter does check the children first thing the way a real babysitter would do. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is not as brutal as the other two. In the made-for-cable sequel the children simply disappear. In the other two, there is no weapon found, meaning the the killer ripped the bodies to shreds using his bare hands. If you enjoyed the 1979 flick, you should enjoy this one and the 2006 remake. All three are above average for mad slasher type suspense films.

Mister_Anderson If you were a fan of the first movie, "When A Stranger Calls", you definitely need to check this one out. If you were only a fan of the first 15 or so minutes from the first movie, you still need to check out the sequel."When a Stranger Calls" is primarily known for (abeit not widely known) its nail-biting, excruciatingly tense beginning. Then, however, the movie drifted off track. It tried to make us sympathize too closely with the killer. A little sympathy is good, but "When a Stranger Calls" went overboard and the overall film suffered for it, feeling unfocused and unpolished."When a Stranger Calls Back" fixes all that. First of all, and these are not spoilers to either movie, while in the first film the killer was once caught and escaped, in this one the killer had never been caught. No one knows who he is or even if there is more than one.More importantly, though, "When a Stranger Calls Back" gives the viewer just enough information to follow the story but not enough to explain every detail. This is a good thing, as it creates a greater sense of unease. For instance, did the children from the beginning die? No one knows, but they've been missing for five years.The scenes are picked deliberately and each one emits an eerie coating that makes the viewer feel uncomfortable for the entire movie (i.e. the house at the beginning and the hospital room at night). Music, thankfully, is not used to attempt to induce scares out of people. Rather, the scary scenes are deathly silent.While there are a couple jump shocks, this film relies primarily on atmosphere. This is where the first movie failed. We find out early on that the killer was caught and then escaped from a mental ward many years later. But we the viewers see the killer close up repeatedly in the tiresome second act as the guy does very non-scary and nonviolent things. Here, though, no one knows who the killer is. In fact, the only evidence that there even was one (besides the hysterical babysitter who could have been "seeing things") is that the children are missing.Much like "The Ring", this film works because it sets up a mystery from the first act, defining several clues, and challenges the viewer to figure out the solution. The first movie had no mystery after the first 15 minutes."When a Stranger Calls Back" doesn't claim to be anything other than a creepy movie, and it does this extremely well. Give us the scares, the feeling of dread, and then sends us on our way. The resolution is neither a good nor bad ending; it just "is", and feels all the more real for it.A must see, even if only once, for any horror fan.