‘When a Stranger Calls’ painfully predictable
If a film is a remake, then it has already lost a lot of potential momentum. At least that is the case with this film, about a babysitter who suffers a series of disturbing phone calls before being hunted down by a psycho, heavy-breathing serial killer.
The original 1979 film (starring Carol Kane, “Adams Family Values”) is a no-frills, voyeuristic suspense feast which develops slowly as you follow the path of a hopeless murderer and his even more hopeless victims. This 2006 version uses almost the exact same template as the original, but still tries to shake things up by updating the technology and adding a few extra characters. Another notable element of uniqueness is that this recent update has the entire series of events condensed into one night, instead of stretching out the storyline over a seven-year period.
Camilla Belle (“The Ballad of Jack and Rose”) has the starring role in this film as the unsuspecting babysitter who finds herself cornered when it’s almost too late. Although there are a few short-lived moments of piercing suspense, most of them are predictable. And the director (Simon West, “Lara Croft: Tomb Raider”) easily manages to create a slender story that unfortunately, gets far too slender all for the sake of being scary. We are given a few scenes where the suspense is handled with the most delicate sensitivity, forcing us to be strung along to the inevitable climax between predator and prey. But the scene construction does not save this film from being just another excuse for teenage girls to scream and cling to the nearest teenage boy.
Despite the series of events being too short and too prosaic, the production design which frames the story is astounding. The house where the horror unfolds is a contemporary castle full of minimal architecture, modern art and cool technology. Lights operate with motion sensors and the fireplace illuminates with the click of a remote control. The house even has its very own solarium, aviary and aquarium. This crisp setting is dripping with so much fashion that it is almost more entertaining than what’s going on inside it. And the house possesses far more personality than any of the actors (who are all just carrying their own stereotype through the film like a dead body draped over their shoulder.)
If you are not familiar with the story that this film embellishes, then you are sure to jolt at least a couple of times in response to the jarring editing and musical crashes that mark each suspenseful scene. Then again, if you’re familiar with all the horror film clichés, you probably won’t be doing much jolting. The film is only driven by the action of cat and mouse. We are never given explanations about characters’ motives or developments or identities. The director is too busy drilling fear into our minds (which he does over and over again).
With so much repetition and a painfully unfulfilling ending, this film will only satisfy the most complacent of audiences.
Casey T. Allen is a critic for the Utah Statesman. Comments can be sent to caseyal@cc.usu.edu.