Connect with us

Editorials

‘When a Stranger Calls’: Misbegotten Remake or Worthwhile Gateway Horror?

Published

on

Society’s relationship with the telephone has changed throughout the years. Once a necessary means of communication, the phone is treated as a nuisance these days. Unwanted calls, bad news, and plain social anxiety are among the reasons why we avoid answering. So, while the phone’s place in a modern world has shifted, its purpose in horror remains all but the same. An affected voice, a thinly veiled threat, the dead silence—no matter how old we get, or how advanced technology becomes, nothing quite raises goosebumps like a creepy phone call.

No urban legend feels more at home in horror than “The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs”, a story that dates all the way back to the 1960s. This myth and its ilk paralleled the emergence of phone thrillers like I Saw What You Did and Midnight Lace. Bob Clark‘s Black Christmas is another seminal example of putting the device to pernicious use. In 1979, Fred Walton changed the landscape of horror with When a Stranger Calls, a movie that faithfully adapts the “Babysitter” urban legend. What began as a 1977 short film eventually became one of the most terrifying openers in horror history.

Twenty-five years later, Screen Gems announced its upcoming redial of When a Stranger Calls. In a time where horror remakes were common, this news was par for the course. Words were neither minced nor kind when February 3, 2006 came around, though. By and large, critics found Simon West‘s reimagining routine and devoid of genuine scares. The film was unanimously panned, then forgotten like so many other of the decade’s horror bygones. However, putting some years between the past and now has benefited a number of horror movies. There has especially been a sizable turnaround for fellow aughts remakes like Black Christmas and Sorority Row. Movies once deemed artless cash-grabs are now underrated or unfairly maligned in retrospect. But can the same be said for When a Stranger Calls?

First off, the remake outright stuns with its main setting. The script included a more conventional-looking house, but Simon West wanted something different. Something modern. Inspired by sleek glass/wood homes from yesteryear, his crew constructed the stunning Mandrakis residence where evil would soon lurk. Sentencing a 16-year-old girl to such a remote location is ill-advised on any parent’s part. Nonetheless, the idyllic appearance of the lakeside house is understandably deceptive. The director utilizes every nook and dark spot. The atrium is a curious addition which manifests the theme of bringing the outside in. Menacing, obscured hallways and an assortment of eldritch décor masked as fine art await Jill on that hellish night. Thanks to the camerawork, it’s as if the house is alive and well aware of the crime at hand.

While it may seem like another opportunistic remake, When a Stranger Calls distinguishes itself from its source material in ways that have gone unnoticed. Before going any further, one has to revisit the movie that started it all. Almost exactly one year after Halloween was released, Fred Walton’s When a Stranger Calls opened in theaters. Opinions varied, but everyone agreed about one thing—the first act was killer. In his first major screenplay, Jake Wade Wall pays tribute while still sharing his own interpretation of the original film’s core idea. He favorably turns that unnerving opening sequence into the remake’s main attraction. It’s a bold choice seeing as Walton could only wring out so much terror from a cautionary tale whose strength is its immediacy. With all the complaints about the 1979 movie’s leftfield turn, removing the stranger’s side story — one that nearly sympathizes a murderer — is wise. In consequence, Wall offers the chance to better know the babysitter.

This new Jill (Camilla Belle) experiences marked growth throughout the remake. Early on, she’s at school, tackling adolescent concerns — she’s not cutting it in track, her boyfriend (Brian Geraghty) kissed someone else, she’s in trouble at home for going over her allotted cell phone minutes — that won’t appeal much to older viewers. Even so, making Jill so individualistic, not to mention fallible, is key to her development. She’s no longer a stock character in a campfire tale. Showing her in her natural environment before she steps foot in that ominous house is necessary. We now know Jill will do whatever it takes to maintain her well-being. Sure, her juvenile crises are of no concern to adult audiences, but they make her an approachable protagonist.

More akin to that era’s crime dramas, the 1979 When a Stranger Calls is not too traditional as far as golden-age slashers go. A sizable chunk of the film is devoted to Charles Durning hunting down the maddened killer. Ultimately, they’re both reunited with Carol Kane’s babysitter, who is suddenly married and with two kids of her own. No time is spent with Jill outside her ill-fated encounters; she’s ignored in favor of her attacker’s side story. At the very least, her closure comes better late than never in the more effective 1993 sequel, When a Stranger Calls Back.

The remake allows Jill more agency without scrubbing away the stranger’s loathsome nature. The madman’s greatest misdeeds still exist—but now, Jill has an active part in her own survival. The paranoia-laden waiting game finally pays off for those anticipating the inevitable. In a gratifying showdown between Jill and the man hiding upstairs, West’s experience with action movies is writ large. The stylized chase sequence that follows is high-strung. The house’s ill-boding arrangement and features are all put to good use as the babysitter fends off her harasser. It’s a stylized clash of good versus evil where the shocks are low, but the stakes are high.

A seasoned horror fan will write the remake off as frightless fluff. With its sterile veneer and seemingly bubblegum lead, this update is a far cry from its gritty, uncomfortable predecessor. Fred Walton and Steve Feke’s story was ultimately one about the inner workings of a deranged man. Whereas in Simon West’s movie, we journey with Jill as she enters unknown territory. We’re privy to her confusion and many mistakes. Again, this Jill is not a faultless character. Her errors solicit a vocal response from the audience, all of whom know what it’s like to be somewhere, alone and anxious. Overall, the remake lacks the potency of the original’s finer moments. It instead spreads its own dread more evenly. The 2006 movie has no effect on the most hardened viewers, but it’s left an impression on those still warming up to the genre.

If we can celebrate the original by its parts rather than its sum, the remake merits the same courtesy. The first film bears a white-knuckled intro that became its legacy. Yet, in spite of the late Tony Beckley’s rousing and raw performance as the villain, the remainder of that movie wears thin. The reimagining is not without its faults—fickle energy, plot contrivances, and an overstretched premise all mar an otherwise functional thriller for entry-level horror fans. The When a Stranger Calls remake doesn’t outshine the original’s brightest spots, but it’s definitely not the cinematic misdial everyone makes it out to be either.

Paul Lê is a Texas-based, Tomato approved critic at Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, and Tales from the Paulside.

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading