..probably have very short attention spans. They probably expected to see blood and guts. Maybe they wanted the killer to be running around chopping heads off and stabbing people. It's possible that they also wanted gruesome dead bodies popping out of closets and tons of screaming. And finally, they most likely waited to see Jill and Tiffany get naked and make out, then get killed. Because THAT'S what makes a good horror!
Okay, just because a horror movie doesn't have blood and guts doesn't mean it's automatically a winner. I like horror movies that focus more on character development and suspense rather than mindless violence; that's not the problem here.
The problem with When a Stranger Calls was that it relies on some of the most tired horror movie cliches imaginable (the cat that jumps out for a cheap "gotcha" moment; the car that won't start; etc.) and the fact that the heroine was kind of an idiot. Seriously, when you know someone is outside the house watching you, and you see an ominous shadow lurking in the nearby guest house, and no one picks up the phone when you call over there, are you really going to run outside of the house, leaving the kids unguarded, just to see who's lurking over there? I wouldn't. The cops have already been called. Stay inside the house and wait for the cops. Not only that, but somehow the killer manages to murder someone outside the house and drag the body up to a bathroom on the third floor without Jill noticing. Yeah, she's not a very bright penny.
Also, there is the scene where the killer is on top of the heroine, strangling her. She grabs a glass bottle and...throws it near the fire place. True, she causes a massive fire ball after reaching for the fireplace controller, but wouldn't it have been easier just to smack him over the head with the bottle? It could work.
Also, I want to note that having the children sick and in bed through out the majority of the film seemed to me like a cheap way of getting out of writing scenes of interaction between the babysitter and the children under her charge. One of the things that made the 1978 Halloween so much more effective is the fact that we got to see scenes of the babysitter and the children interacting. The kids were well-rounded characters, and existed not to simply be placed in danger when it was a convenience for the screenwriters.
I paid very close attention to what was on screen. I watched the movie with an open mind. (I do like more than a few PG-13 horror films. Ever see the 80's ghost story "Lady in White?") The more the movie played out, the lamer it got. (Although to be fair, I did like Katie Cassidy's performance; and there were moments where the film was entertainingly awful)
reply
share
novastar_6
13 years ago
Also, there is the scene where the killer is on top of the heroine, strangling her. She grabs a glass bottle and...throws it near the fire place. True, she causes a massive fire ball after reaching for the fireplace controller, but wouldn't it have been easier just to smack him over the head with the bottle? It could work.
And once the bottle broke over his head, she could stab him with a jagged piece of it.
Also, I want to note that having the children sick and in bed through out the majority of the film seemed to me like a cheap way of getting out of writing scenes of interaction between the babysitter and the children under her charge. One of the things that made the 1978 Halloween so much more effective is the fact that we got to see scenes of the babysitter and the children interacting. The kids were well-rounded characters, and existed not to simply be placed in danger when it was a convenience for the screenwriters.
The original movie never showed the children either but theirs was I think easier to understand why because the children are revealed to be murdered in their beds within the first 15 minutes of the movie, it probably wouldn't have worked as well if we had 10-20 minutes of her playing with them first before sending them up to bed.
reply
share
PsychologyBoy
13 years ago
And once the bottle broke over his head, she could stab him with a jagged piece of it.
Exactly!
The original movie never showed the children either but theirs was I think easier to understand why because the children are revealed to be murdered in their beds within the first 15 minutes of the movie
Right, that was just a 15 minute segment in a much longer film. There was more to that film than a girl locked up in a house scaring herself for an hour before a killer shows up.
Since they decided to make this entire film set at the lake house, they could've added, I don't know, maybe an extra scene or two involving the children. Anything to break the monotony.
reply
share
stayprettystockholm
12 years ago
what does not noticing someone CLEARLY trying to be stealthy (or hey, waiting till she was out of the house to do it... I forget the order or sequence) have to do with her intelligence? the bottle thing was pretty smart too.
and really? that little girl could really do that much damage against that brick wall off a guy? I mean she could probably have hurt him but not so well as burning him, then stabbing him with the poker.
"I do pretend I am a princess, so that I can try and behave like one."
reply
share