Thanks for the memories!

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Belated made-for-TV sequel When A Stranger Calls Back starts off in full-on creepy mode, with babysitter Julia (Jill Schoelen) being disturbed by a stranger who knocks on the front door claiming that his car has broken down. In reality, he is a psycho who will not give up until he can get inside the house. After a tense stand-off, Julia doing everything to keep the man at bay, help eventually arrives, but not before the stranger is able to abscond with the children sleeping upstairs.All of this is well executed by director Fred Walton, with a strong performance from Schoelen, but the real horror is what comes next: five years after the disappearance of the kids, Julia is now an emotionally withdrawn student - sporting a monstrous mullet. The short hairstyle Schoelen wore in the opening scene wasn't particularly flattering, but her mullet is truly terrible, a heinous hairstyle guaranteed to disturb fans of the actress. When the psycho reappears and begins to torment Julia, the harrassed girl shoots herself in the head, but I suspect that looking in the mirror at that abysmal haircut was also a contributing factor.With Julia in a hospital bed, it is up to counselor Jill Johnson and detective John Clifford (Carol Kane and Charles Durning reprising their roles from the first film) to try and work out who it is that has been menacing the poor girl. At this point things get seriously silly, the nut-job revealed to be William Landis (Gene Lythgow), a ventriloquist who paints his face and body to blend in with his background (original, to say the least!). In a very silly finalé, Landis disguises himself as a brick wall in Jill's apartment, throwing his voice to confuse the woman.4.5 out of 10, rounded down to 4 for the mullet, and for failing to give us any insight into Landis's motives (we never learn what he did with the kidnapped children).

The sequel to the hit horror movie When a Stranger Calls was given the prototypical title that many horror film sequels contained in the 90's, by adding a subsequent word, in this case "Back". When a Stranger Calls Back is a made for TV-movie that was just another rehash of what we have already seen with the first. The film's helm is led by the same man who created the first, Fred Walton, but even he couldn't really save his work given the chance. Carol Kane and Charles Durning aged and didn't have the screen presence they did and the first and the new edition of Jill Schoelen wasn't a great choice as the main female lead.The most cringe worthy aspect of the film though is towards the end when the killer becomes more part of the story line. His ability to blend in any environment was corny and laughable at times and just didn't provide any creepy angles to the film. Even when the film picks up after the initial dull periods it just doesn't have enough suspenseful juice to satisfy a fan of thrillers or horror. What the film doesn't even come close to holding a candle to is the introductory phone series that the first one perfected and this one tried to duplicate. Skip the sequel to When a Strange Calls Back, the remake of the original is actually for once a better watch.

I realize how classic the 1979 version was, and I know how scared some people were during the infamous, "The call is coming from inside your house!" line...but let's be honest, that urban legend has been around for far longer than that film, and 1974's Black Christmas had a scene with that exact scenario. The 2006 remake was probably one of the most pitiful attempts at a remake I've seen in recent years, even securing a spot next to the Prom Night remake. 1993's sequel to the original, however, was surprisingly decent. Carol Kane returns to play the role of Jill, but this time, as a detective. It's really not all that bad for a made-for-TV movie...it certainly has its intense moments. Fred Walton directed the film - the same man responsible for the 1986 slasher April Fool's Day.Not a bad follow-up to the original. Give it a shot!

This is a genuinely decent thriller. It manages to capture much of the suspense and terror of When A Stranger Calls (1979) while bringing back Carol Kane and Charles Durning to reprise their original roles. Overall the plot, acting, direction, script work, story and camera work are all very well done. Why then do I say it's hard to watch? The movie falls down in two ways, the first is the terribly dated nineties fashions and hair styles. Most of it would be forgivable if the main characters clothing and hairstyle weren't so bad. This may seem like a trivial complaint but in all seriousness, it makes the movie hard to watch. A woman with a mullet, the vests, the high wasted stone washed (or is it acid washed?) jeans, the white running shoes, I mean it just looks so bad that it actually distracts you from the movie. Most film makers are careful to avoid dating their movies in this way. Generally they try to have actors and actresses look good while still keeping enough distance from popular fashion that the movie still looks good twenty years down the road. In the case of this movie though, caution was apparently thrown to the wind.The second downfall of this movie is the ending, which I won't give away but I'll elaborate a little on why it hurts the movie. The original ended in a fantastically sinister way. Having watched it recently, the ending of When A Stranger Calls actually sent a chill up my spine. This film however fails to achieve that and instead offers up a sort of ho hum ending that's quite forgettable.There is also a strange scene in a strip club that must of been born out of the California hard body craze. Rather then spoil the joyous fun by describing it, I'll leave it up to those of you who are adventurous enough to watch this movie and find out what I mean.All of that said, Charles Durning is fantastic in this as he has been in most things I've seen him in. He plays the role of the worn out detective very well. Carol Kane is believable as the somewhat strung out victim of a psychopath trying to move on with her life and achieve something meaningful. Jill Schoelen provides a good performance and the rest of the cast, with a couple of exceptions, all do a good job. The movie really is worth watching if you can tolerate the fashion disasters of it's era...actually disasters may be to a light a word, horrors maybe?