Select a Revue: 

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

When a Stranger Calls 

You know that scene toward the beginning of Scream where Sidney gets a mysterious phone call or two, blows them off at first, starts to get a little spooked, and is then attacked by the ghost face guy? That entire sequence might have taken up about 10 minutes, max. Now imagine that entire exchange being drawn out for an hour and a half longer, and you will have just watched When a Stranger Calls.

I should just stop there, as that's probably the best review for this movie that you will ever get. But, I blew two hours and $17 (including candy), so why not waste another hour writing a more in-depth analysis, shall we? Let's start with the candy: the raisinets were pretty tasty, but my favorite part of the mix was by far the red sour patch kids. I was glad that I had decided at the last second to throw in some reese's pieces, because they added a nice peanut-buttery flair to the snack that would otherwise have made for a rather bland chocolate/sour mix. On the other hand, I was a little annoyed that the reese's pieces and raisinets were so indistinguishable in the darkened theater, as more than once I bit into a raisinet anticipating a reese's piece--it's a very discomforting sensation to eat a mushy chocolate raisin when one expects the hard candy shell coating around peanut butter. I'll never mix the two candies in the same bag ever again, I tell you.

So anyway, this high school girl, Jill Johnson (Camilla Belle), goes out to an isolated house in the middle of the woods to babysit for a wealthy couple. First, however, the filmmakers are careful to firmly establish that Jill is a super-fast sprinter on the track team, which is ostensibly done for purposes of exposition that will no doubt come into play later as Jill runs frantically away from some random ne'er do well. She is given a quick tour of the house, wherein it is also firmly established that all the interior lights are motion-sensor detection, so she will not have to flip any light switches whatsoever, as the lights will come on automatically as she enters a room and go off as she exits. Fairly standard for motion detection, I would think, but not in this movie. The two children whom Jill will be watching are apparently recovering from the flu and were put to bed prior to her arrival, so the parents ask that Jill not wake them up as they will most likely die if returned to a conscious state before morning. So, as soon as the parents leave and Jill begins to settle into some homework, a creepy guy starts calling and doing some serious heavy-breathing. After the filmmakers have exhausted every "false alarm" scenario that they can think of, including the cat that runs around and apparently sets off the alarm system, the stranger finally stops breathing long enough to ask Jill whether she has checked on the kids lately. Feeling sufficiently creeped out, she phones the police and they tell her they will start tracing the calls, which are coming from inside the house. (!) Like, oh. My. God.

I think every pre-pubescent girl has heard this particular scary story many times, and I admit that I used to get that unsettling feeling when I used to babysit, worried that it might actually happen to me. I mean it is a good scary story.

For junior high girls.

There was about 30 minutes of actual story, meaning that the remaining hour was filled with foreboding music and sweeping shots of the darkening sky outside. Literally. My favorite part, however, was when the family cat, who had spent most of his evening running around the house making the lights go on and off, went ahead and ate a live bird. It was seriously cool as hell, and they spent a good 5 seconds on it at least. I was even more impressed with its mastery of the lights, which seemed to be less about motion-detection and more about going on or off when it would be most frightening to Jill.

I don't recommend this movie. Unlike a good horror movie, it was not scary. And unlike a bad horror movie, it was not funny. It was just boring.

5 Comments:

At 9:25 AM, Blogger Jake said...

Hilarious.

 
At 4:27 AM, Blogger David Amulet said...

When a supposed thriller is just BORING, that's really, really not good.

Very funny review--thanks!

-- david

 
At 3:11 PM, Blogger Jay Noel said...

Sounds like an absolute stinker. What do you expect when it's a movie based on some goofy urban legend we told as kids around a campfire?

 
At 12:38 PM, Blogger Steve said...

Wait a minute... You got Raisinets, Reese's Pieces, and Sour Patch Kids? That is your problem right there. This combination of lethal chemicals probably provided enough damage to your perception for that two hour period for you to have though any movie the suckiest...

The sticky sour sugar-like stuff that coats those gooey kids both causes you to break into a sweat and burns your tongue after extended use. AND...

The salty peanut butter and chocolate absorbs moisture out of your body, preventing the sweat from escaping your system, centralizing it into your abdominal area. AND...

The Raisinets are covered in a radioactive chocolate-type substance that is commonly known to bring life to inanimate objects and inciting them to sing 60's era love-songs.

This mixture of dangerous chemicals turned you into what I'm sure was something resimbling a dancing raisin on acid. Your incessant dancing and love-longing lyrics probably went a long way towards giving you the wrong impression of this movie.

OR...

It could just suck.



PS: This was much funnier in my head, so just laugh with me, and we'll pretend this comment didn't happen.

 
At 1:04 PM, Blogger BuffyICS said...

Well, I did neglect to mention that I threw in some red Swedish Fish into the mix, which probably canceled out the Sour Kids sweat-inducing reaction and subsequent Reese's Pieces counterreaction. As to the raisinets chocolate coating though, it does explain why Hall & Oates songs got inexplicably stuck in my head. Then again, come on, Maneater is just a good song.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home