The original "When a Stranger Calls" from 1979 was a dynamite and effectively petrifying little horror sleeper. Why? Because of its very simplistic but nevertheless fascinating concept of a perverted maniac persistently stalking a defenseless babysitter through sinister phone calls. Even though the more routine middle part couldn't hold a candle to the masterful opening twenty ones, the wholesome should definitely be regarded as a modest and influential genre classic. And the last thing you can say about writer/director Fred Walton is that he exploited the success and promptly produced a series of inferior sequels. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is actually a rather belated follow-up, but unmistakably one that perfectly mirrors the original film. This second, made for television production, is even pretty much identical with the same narrative structure, atmosphere-building, lead characters and portrayal of the villain. There's the brilliantly tense and gripping opening, the tedious and somewhat annoying middle section and the short but powerful shock-climax. Cherubic and warm-hearted young babysitter Julia is babysitting one night when a supposedly stranded guy knocks on the door asking to use the telephone. Julia clearly watched enough old horror movies and is smart enough not to keep the front door shut, but the visitor refuses to go away and gradually fills Julia up with fear. The night ends tragically, when Julia suddenly stands face to face with a perpetrator in the hallway. Five years later, she's an eternally traumatized woman who seeks the help of Jill Johnson (the stalker victim of the original became a counselor) and her savior John Clifford; the former cop turned private detective.
Addition spoiler warning: in the paragraph here below I will most likely reveal essential plot aspects from both the original and the sequel
"When a Stranger Calls Back" is an adequate film and definitely guarantees some moments of genuine suspense. What I don't understand, however, is that many people seem to prefer the sequel over the original. I couldn't disagree more, mainly because the script of the original film is at least a dozen times more plausible in every imaginable department. First and foremost: the killer. The 1979 killer, Curt Duncan, was a 'realistic' psychopath. He stalked a girl and spent time in prison. He failed to fit into society and slowly found his way back to the girl for revenge. The psycho in this case is a ventriloquist, a master of disguise, a melodramatic philosopher and we're supposed to believe he left Julia alone during five whole years even though the police never picked up his trail? What kind of pathetic killer does that? Then there's the completely implausible return of Carol Kane's character Jill Johnson. It's already hard to accept that she became a psychological counselor after what happened to her, but now she helps another young girl who's going through pretty much the exact same ordeal as she did? Plus she's a lousy counselor, since you definitely don't encourage a manic depressed girl to buy a gun. Everybody complained how the middle section of the original nearly ruined the entire film, as it exposed the psychopath's whole persona and thus made him less menacing. Maybe so, but the middle section of the sequel definitely exaggerates in doing the complete opposite. Fred Walton attempts to make his villain so mysterious and introvert that it simply becomes ridicule. The ventriloquist act is downright pitiable and just a tad bit grotesque. There are numerous little details that don't make sense, but they're not immediately noticeable thanks to the good performances and compelling atmosphere. The more you contemplate about the story, though, the sillier it gets.
Addition spoiler warning: in the paragraph here below I will most likely reveal essential plot aspects from both the original and the sequel
"When a Stranger Calls Back" is an adequate film and definitely guarantees some moments of genuine suspense. What I don't understand, however, is that many people seem to prefer the sequel over the original. I couldn't disagree more, mainly because the script of the original film is at least a dozen times more plausible in every imaginable department. First and foremost: the killer. The 1979 killer, Curt Duncan, was a 'realistic' psychopath. He stalked a girl and spent time in prison. He failed to fit into society and slowly found his way back to the girl for revenge. The psycho in this case is a ventriloquist, a master of disguise, a melodramatic philosopher and we're supposed to believe he left Julia alone during five whole years even though the police never picked up his trail? What kind of pathetic killer does that? Then there's the completely implausible return of Carol Kane's character Jill Johnson. It's already hard to accept that she became a psychological counselor after what happened to her, but now she helps another young girl who's going through pretty much the exact same ordeal as she did? Plus she's a lousy counselor, since you definitely don't encourage a manic depressed girl to buy a gun. Everybody complained how the middle section of the original nearly ruined the entire film, as it exposed the psychopath's whole persona and thus made him less menacing. Maybe so, but the middle section of the sequel definitely exaggerates in doing the complete opposite. Fred Walton attempts to make his villain so mysterious and introvert that it simply becomes ridicule. The ventriloquist act is downright pitiable and just a tad bit grotesque. There are numerous little details that don't make sense, but they're not immediately noticeable thanks to the good performances and compelling atmosphere. The more you contemplate about the story, though, the sillier it gets.