Julia is babysitting two young kids while a doctor and his wife are out. During the evening, a stranger knocks on the door asking Julia if she can call the auto club so he can get a tow. The phone line is dead though. This is all part of the act as he has made his way inside and abducted the two children. Years later, Julia has become an introvertive college student. She claims the stalker is back haunting her. Enter Jill Johnson and now retired cop John Clifford, who have reunited to help Julia find the stalker. Can they stop him before he strikes again?

Also Known As: Cuando un extraño vuelve a llamar, Lo sconosciuto alla porta, Um Estranho à Minha Porta, Stimme der Dunkelheit, Terreur sur la ligne 2, When a Stranger Calls Back, Когда незнакомец снова звонит, When a Stranger Calls 2, Kun tuntematon soittaa jälleen, La llamada de un extraño, W potrzasku

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • timothee-verdier
    timothee verdier

    This film ranks as one of the best made-for-tv movies I’ve ever seen. It explores the primordial fear for the safety of young children and personal security with such a quiet voice that you are not aware of its impact until the end. Great tension, excellent beginning and an eerie scene in the hospital room make this film a little gem. It will get you believe me.

  • lampros-laokrates-draziotes
    lampros laokrates draziotes

    If you made it through the first one, then you know you saw a classic-of-sorts. Well, like it’s predecessor, this one has a moment or two that will… CREEP YOU OUT! In fact, I was actually shocked to just learn that it was made for t.v. There’s no gore or anything like that – it’s not a “horror movie”. But it is a chiller; a scary movie – and about as good as it gets outside of Hitchcock and Serling. The movie as a whole may not rank more than a 5 (out of 10), but that one scene, man, Unforgettable!

  • ani-mik-ayelyan
    ani mik ayelyan

    When A Stranger Calls Back is without a doubt one of the most underrated films of all time. It is better than it’s predecessor (which was also a very entertaining film). However, what makes this film more enjoyable and scary is the fact that the tension is kept throughout the film, as opposed to the first one where only the beginning and end are suspenseful. In When A Stranger Calls Back, the beginning, middle, and end are filled with some of the most frightening scenes I’ve ever viewed and keep the film going at a steady, entertaining pace. And the ending is mind-blowingly creative and scary. The characters are all well developed, the script is tight, and the direction is superb. I won’t reveal anything about the plot, but all I can say is that once you see this film, you will be drawn in by its originality and suspense. Kudos to underrated writer/director Fred Walton for making one of the best suspense thrillers you’ll ever see. (****)out of(****)

  • herr-stanislav-borner
    herr stanislav borner

    This movie is so great. I didn’t even see the first one, so I have nothing to compare this one to, and say it’s still awesome. I caught it the first time on showtime when I was in high school I think. I’m the type of person who can’t sleep with the lights off, but i was drawn to watch this movie. It’s probably one of the top three reasons I still can’t be alone in the dark. I mean the end is the best. As freaky as Clarice being in the guys buggy house. Sooooooooo scary!!! About a year after I saw it, I was out with my friends and the movie came up in conversation. Two of them who’d seen it together said it was by far the scariest movie they ever saw. So if you want to be creeped out and finish reading this crazy post RENT THE MOVIE!!!!

  • pan-volodimir-gzhitskii
    pan volodimir gzhitskii

    When watching this film you really have to forget about the classic original. This film will have you gripped from the start. I watched this in a hotel room at 2.30am and I couldn’t turn away. The subtle little things that the guy does would turn anyone mad. The end may be a bit poor, too many coincidences to actually find the guy. Still it really is great fun. I would buy this on video.

  • dr-guadalupe-valentin
    dr guadalupe valentin

    Only reason it is 8/10 is because it is made for TV. It is a polished version of the original “When a Stranger Calls” 1979. The ending is brilliant and the beginning equally so. Imagine being terrorized by someone some 7 years later after you were already terrorized by the same person. Also add the fact that the stalker can get into your house when you are and are not home, and talk to you without you knowing where he is. The killer is what a killer should be, no remorse, no irony, no explanations, just someone wanting to scare and mutilate someone. No stupid psychologists and dumb jail scenes, this film, save for it being a second version of the 1979 edition, is original in substance and casting and definitely worth the time.

  • bianca-johnson
    bianca johnson

    I had a hard time trying to find this movie but now that I’ve watched it, I’m not a bit disappointed.The movie’s first 20 or 25 minutes are extremely creepy thanks to a great direction mixed with a thrilling score. Like in the first movie, a baby sitter named Julia is terrorized by an unknown stranger who keeps knocking on the principal house door in order to convince her to let him in. Julia is smart and skeptical enough to never let him in (probably she has watched many Horror movies) but she is not smart enough to close the window and back door. After a series of hints, Julia finds out that the stranger not only entered the house but also kidnapped the children. Unlike the first movie, the stranger lets Julia know that he’s in the house and when he’s about to strangle her or something like that, she escapes from the house and finds the parents. Everything was okay by 11:15, the parents were supposed to arrive at 11:30. In 15 minutes, Julia experienced the worst nightmare she could ever imagine. These events are greatly directed. The movie has aged very well in the visuals aspect. The score is also perfect for the movie. After these chilling scenes, the movie fast forwards 5 years to display the current life of Julia, now a college student who is obviously traumatized by the events of “that” night. She checks out the door of her dorm even after closing it. But it seems that her tranquility is in danger again as a new stalker is terrorizing her, again. She is aided by the help of Jill Johnson (now college counselor) and ex detective John Clifford, who once again comes to the rescue (not to mention that he returns with extra weight!). This new stranger is more clever, aggressive, and meaner than the stranger from the original movie. After a series of events, including Julia staying in comma for some time and being attacked int he hospital; Jill being terrorized in the supermarket; a suspicious ventriloquist, etc., the stranger makes an appearance and confronts Jill and Clifford. The resolution of the movie is pretty chilling and convincing. The stranger camouflaged with the walls of the apartment before attacking Jill, who is not in defense, as she -literally- kicks his butt with her martial arts moves. The middle of the movie is very interesting and intense although many important details are not explained. I understand that the children were never found because the stranger actually killed them, as it happened in the original. But why would he terrorize Julia? Anyways, this is a movie to watch home alone at night. It also looks better than many modern Horror movies; it has better acting, direction, score, and plot than many of them. Jill Schoelen is extremely beautiful and makes you want to come to the scene and help her! She’s just too cute to be on those kind of situations. Carol Kane is also very good in her role. She’s a great actress. The rest of the cast is very good and convincing. This sequel is superior than the original mainly because it has better acting, direction, and a great plot. I highly recommend it because it easily is one of the best Horror Thrillers from the past decade.

  • enfes-eraslan
    enfes eraslan

    Just like its modest predecessor it’s a moodily atmospheric on-edge thriller that’s just as good, if not better than its inspiration. Basically the same-setup and story structure (it’s ringing off the hook), but writer / director Fred Walton (who directed and co-penned the original) competently pulls it off again. Lucky Walton illustrates another blindingly chilling and unbearably taut opening that drips with intensity and intrigue. Simple, but unquestionably effective. Something about the tone is creepier and dark, and it never lets the viewer get comfortable because it seems to stay there. Even then it really plays more like an open-wound, slow-burn mystery, but none of that lingering dread evaporates after the terrific opening. It’s much more persistent, and the killer is kept in the shadows and emit’s a disturbingly unnerving awe. He’s a weirdo (a perfectly eerie Gene Lythgow), but there’s no real reasoning for his obsessive tormenting of the traumatised girl (a beautifully sensitive performance by Jill Schoelen). This leaves some logic holes in the plot, but there’s a little more novelty to it and it doesn’t feel as loose. Coming back for seconds (returning from the original) are splendid turns by Carol Kane and Charles Dunning. Walton’s exceptional direction is well drilled and it’s passively shot with proficient positioning. The score stays strong, by inducing a spooky and suspenseful essence. This can be appreciated with its beautifully constructed nerve-wrecking conclusion.

  • andrew-davis
    andrew davis

    I remember watching this movie as a kid and it sticking with me. I had absolutely no interest in ever babysitting bc of the horror that unravels in these movies. It is brilliantly written and executed. I wish more movies would adapt to this concept – the “less is more”. It’s not gory and there is so much suspense. Simple, yet terrifying.

  • amy-owens
    amy owens

    While not a typical horror sequel, When A Stranger Calls Back contains some striking moments, and deals intelligently and compassionately with two of the most fragile heroines in cinema. By not resorting to standard ‘shocks’ and concentrating on creeping terror, the film has a lot more to say about the realities of real fear than most genre offerings. These are traumatised people who have reconstructed a precise simulacrum of their former lives. When a pencil they placed 2.2 centimetres from their ruler is discovered moved .2 of a centimetre, they know someone has invaded their territory and moved it, it’s just not something they’d forget or mistake. The fact that it’s impossible to prove makes the protagonists appear paranoid – only those who have brushed up against this type of terror before, Kane, Durning, Schoelen know the truth. Viewed from a less mainstream perspective, this is a very rewarding film. True, there is some muddled plotting midway, but it’s worth seeing, if only for the bleakest ‘happy’ ending in American cinema. Incidentally, I’m sure Kevin Williamson would gladly admit to using a conglomeration of When a Stranger Calls and the first half hour of this film as his inspiration for the opening sequence of Scream (with added blood).

  • fokina-agafia-zakharovna
    fokina agafia zakharovna

    “When a Stranger Calls Back” is really a sequel to “When a Stranger Calls” and not just a remix. The 2006 “When a Stranger Calls” is actually a remake of the first twenty or so minutes of the original 1979 version which was the superior part of the film. The 1979 original drifted aimlessly for the middle third of the movie before regaining much of its momentum for the final third.The made-for-cable “When a Stranger Calls Back” has some excellent scenes that do actually scare the heebie-jeebies out of the viewer. The use of the door rather than the telephone during the first part introduced a new aspect of the crazed psycho, that he could throw his voice. For this viewer the creepiest part occurred with Charles Durning encountering the monster in the alleyway. The cinematography with the camera zooming in on the creature all in black lurking in the darkness showing his blazon eyes before closing them for a full blackout is truly amazing. The angle of the shot showing Durning attempting to discover the hidden evil with the noir-like rain silhouetting his features is a stroke of cinema genius.That the producers were able to reunite two of the key figures in the original after fourteen years makes “When a Stranger Calls Back” even more relevant as a sequel. Carol Kane and Charles Durning reprise their roles as babysitter Jill Johnson (Jill as in kill) and John Clifford respectively to great effect. The chemistry between the two is still present.”When a Stranger Calls Back” is also more believable than the other two Stranger films. For instance, the babysitter does check the children first thing the way a real babysitter would do. “When a Stranger Calls Back” is not as brutal as the other two. In the made-for-cable sequel the children simply disappear. In the other two, there is no weapon found, meaning the the killer ripped the bodies to shreds using his bare hands. If you enjoyed the 1979 flick, you should enjoy this one and the 2006 remake. All three are above average for mad slasher type suspense films.

  • victoria-domingues
    victoria domingues

    ****SPOILERS**** There’s a really gripping and terrifying half hour or so opening of the movie “When a stranger calls back” where Julia, Jill Schoelen, is trapped inside the house that she’s baby-sitting in by some unseen psycho, who’s playing a sick cat and mouse game with her. The sicko then ends up kidnapping the two children that Julia was baby-sitting and disappears into the night never to be seen or heard of again until some five years later when Julia is attending collage. The madman for some reason known only to himself resurfaces and starts again to terrify Julia, in showing her that he’s still around and watching her, by leaving clues like moving thing around in her off-campus apartment and driving, the already very emotionally disturbed,Julia almost out of her mind. Carol Kane, Jill, and Charles Durning,John Clifford, who were in the original “When a Stranger Calls” repeat their roles in this sequel. The two are so unnatural and artificial as well as perplexing to those of us watching the movie, who haven’t seen the original film, without knowing about their previous involvement in the story that they only hamper the plot, instead of explain it, to the already very confused audience. If you never saw the first “When a stranger calls” you would wonder just why they were so prominent here in the first place? A flash-back of Jill & John Clifford in the original film inserted into the movie would have greatly helped but for some reason it wasn’t done.John somehow finds out who the psycho is, a person who’s introduced by John to us watching the movie as a Mr. Landis, who’s doing a ventriloquist act in some nightclub in the city. Landis doing his act, in black-face, at the club in what has to be one of the most puzzling as well as outrages scenes ever put on film. Having a dummy without a mouth, much less a face, Landis gives this pseudo-philosophical BS monologue about the facelessness of the humanity of the people in the audience. He then goes on telling the audience how that what they want to look like is not what their really like? Ladis just keeps on trash-talking and annoying as well as instigating the people in the club that the club manager has to throw him out of the place before the people watching him storm the stage and end up beating or even killing him.John looking for Landis in a back-alley behind the nightclub tells him what a great act he has, what was John drinking at the time, and wants to talk to him about it only to have Landis take off and run away. We’ve seen Landis before in the hospital room where Julia was ,after she or someone else shot her in the head, as he just materialized out of nowhere. He’s then seen for some reason beating on Julia’s unconscious body so hard as if he hit her one more time he would have broke her in half. John finds out the hotel where Landis is staying and is told by one of the people there that he came to the city to tell some woman that her children are dead which makes no sense at all since it’s never explained to us why he did that. John also finds a number of photos in Landis’ now deserted room of Julia both dressed and undressed in her hospital room taken by him. The movie ends with Landis hiding out in Jill’s loft apartment disguised as the apartments woodwork and masonry as he tries to kill her. Landis instead only comes across looking like a jerk as he messes up and ends up getting shot and killed himself by John who comes to Jill’s rescue in just the nick of time. We were never really told in the movie just what were the reasons for Landis to terrorize and try to murder both Julia and Jill? did they do something to hurt him in the past? The ending of the movie which should have explained all this, just who Landis was and why he do what he did, explained nothing about this very troubled and dangerous individual and just left you even more bewildered then you were when you were watching the film.

  • simon-gogsaze
    simon gogsaze

    Fred Walton did it again. Along with the original, When a Stranger Calls Back has one of the most frightening openings of all time. Unnerving, alarming, and damn scary. Once again my girlfriend could not watch this one. It’s too bad that Walton made the same mistake that he did in the first one: failure to live up to the beginning. The rest of the movie isn’t that good. Actually, it’s not good at all. Although it’s not as lacking in the middle as the original and this psychopath is more interesting than the last, it’s still not good. I kinda wish that they would have delved more into his character. Watch it for the beginning alone and you will not be disappointed.

  • bhaart-riyaa
    bhaart riyaa

    When a Stranger Calls Back is one of my Favorite movies. I like it not only because it deals with a very Psychotic, original, and Creepy Killer, but he really expressed his feelings in the “poem” like speech he gives towards the end.The only thing I did not like about the movie was the game the Innocent characters seem to create the whole plot into. Other than that, this movie is top of the line, and it is shocking to me the bad review this movie has picked up.It is not just the bad reviews and comments that annoy me. It’s the message or insult they all carry: This movie has nothing to do with the original! SO WHAT! A lot of Classic movies (House II, as well as the “Leprechaun” sequels) had Very little, if not nothing, to do with the original. This is one of my Favorite movies that I watch over and over again and if you are a Horror fan, I am Almost Certain you will also.My Score: 10 out of 10People who liked this movie might like: Puppet Master, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal, Slumber Party Massacre, Sorority House Massacre, The dead hate the living, Halloween, Army of Darkness, Scream 2, Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and Hideous!. For more recommendations, please check the other movies I have commented on by clicking on my name above this Comment Section.

  • renee-bell
    renee bell

    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).

  • maite-fernandes
    maite fernandes

    J Campolongo more or less says it all. Tension is kept tight throughout, Walton really knows how to squeeze every once of suspense out of these kind of films. There’s a few great twists (one of the main characters is knocked out of the action half way through). Nice to see the original stars once again especially Carol Kane who gives it her best & wont take any of this “Shes just a mixed up kid” crap from the cops. Wipes the floor with the first one which people really only remember when you quote the line “The calls are coming from inside the house!” 9 out of 10

  • joshua-van-der-heijden-wouters-van-eijnd
    joshua van der heijden wouters van eijnd

    Better then the original in my opinion. This sequel picks up several years later after the events in the original. This time around Carol Kane and Charles Durning team up together to help a babysitter (Jill Schoelen) who is being stalked by a maniac. Just like the first one, this entry has an intense and scary start as well as an exciting finale, but unlike the first one this film’s midsection is nowhere near as boring. Sure things slow down a bit, but the film is always interesting and has some rather original ideas.Rated R; Violence, Nudity.

  • alan-gonzales
    alan gonzales

    College student Juli Jenz(Jill Schoelen)underwent a traumatic incident with a psychotic killer(who uses the phone to terrorize),five years ago and now years later at college she’s been getting some suspicious calls which lead her to believe the killer is back.When she contacts the police,they inform her that her original stalker is dead therefore she must be having flashbacks and refer her to a psychiatrist,instead of checking for physical evidence.Anyway,”When a Stranger Calls Back” works as TV produced remake of Fred Walton’s 1979 classic “When a Stranger Calls”.It has enough twists,turns and suspense to keep horror fans on the edge of their seats.The beginning is especially tense and memorable.There is no gore or strong violence and the killer’s identity is kept secret through the film until the climax.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.So if even casually enjoyed the original “When a Stranger Calls”,then this film is must-see.7 out of 10.Check it out.

  • riina-lumiste
    riina lumiste

    Made for television sequel of Walton’s 1979 thriller ,When a Stranger Calls, surprisingly lives up to the original film in almost every way.Jill is now a PI herself, and with the help of her old friend hopes to save a young woman who believes she has been terrorized by a maniac for years.When a Stranger Calls Back mirrors the original film very much, but it’s in a good way. It packs much of the same kinds of suspense and atmosphere of the original film, all the while telling a new and interesting mystery. Of course much of this is owed to director Walton, who returns to do another bravo job of molding this film.Charles Durning and Carol Kane reprise their original roles well.Intriguing and well-done all the way, When a Stranger Calls Back is a good sequel that isn’t hampered by its television limitations. Those who enjoyed the original film will undoubtedly find it a worthy sequel.*** out of ****

  • nancy-ruiz
    nancy ruiz

    I don’t understand how this movie has been rated a mere four-point-something (as of May, 2000) on the IMDb. I assume it’s because there are people out there who detest to be frightened and are stupid enough to use this criteria to rate horror films. Blah with them.To me, this is one the most chilling, frightening films I have ever seen and, being a horror film fan, I can safely say that I have probably seen more horror films than most people. (Note: I am also discriminating about horror films and don’t think they are all equally great.)Clearly, I am not alone in the belief that this is an excellent movie because the opening scene in “Scream” is obviously based on the opening set piece in this one, as well as on a similar scene in “When a Stranger Calls”. There are differences between the “Scream” and “WASCB” scenes, though, and the main difference is that “Scream” ingeniously interlaces humor and shock while “WASCB” goes for relentless mounting tension, with its main goal to creep the bejesus out of the audience, at which it thoroughly succeeds.”When a Stranger Calls Back” is a little gem and Fred Walton is one of the few directors who truly understand how to build and sustain tension. He proved it in the terrific “When a Stranger Calls” and, later, in excellent TV movies like “I Saw What You Did” and “Murder in Paradise”. Here as in some of his other projects, Walton shows a knack for letting the fright build on the merits of the story and its twists, for letting the viewers know that something horrible is about to happen and playing with their expectations of when, how and to whom. Usually, what happens is not what he’s been telling you would happen, so the horror builds inside your head and, as we know, that’s the best kind. It’s not graphic, it’s worse, it’s in your thoughts and it usually lingers there, like cobwebs…I have shown the DVD of “WASCB” to many friends, including people who are not particularly keen on horror movies, and they all agree that it’s an excellent, very scary film. Don’t pay attention to those who put it down and try it. And if you can, watch it at night, when it’s quiet out there and the lights are out and the kids are asleep.

  • ingeborg-tove-ali
    ingeborg tove ali

    I really enjoyed this film. It was was really suspenseful and scary, especially when he is bothering her through the front door…you never know where he is! I recommend this movie to everyone who likes thrillers. Not a horror movie, but scary none the less. The acting is very good..and with big stars..the film is hardly a flop. When the film starts it gets right to the point..starts right off with the babysitter going into the house where she is to watch the children for the night. as soon as the door closes you know something isn’t right. You know this babysitter is NOT alone. A couple words of advice for babysitters…always check every lock in the house!

  • edvige-pagano
    edvige pagano

    Before babysitters only had to worry if the phone rang, now they have to fear a knock on the door as well!I’m a big fan of the first film and when I found out there was a sequel a few years ago I just had to watch it. The problem was I couldn’t find it. Once I did find it I was a bit cautious about renting it. Would it just be a carbon copy of the original? Well yes it is and no it isn’t. The format is the same but the writer Fred Walton has done his best to throw in many original ideas.For those who don’t know, the story follows a babysitter who is tormented by a stranger one night while babysitting. Five years later she is tormented again. The police wonder, is it the same person or is she just seeking attention? It’s hard to say, but Jill (Carol Kane) who experienced the same situation years before believes her. There are some problems with the movie. John Clifford (Charles Durning) who investigates the mystery solves it pretty quickly and hunts down the stranger just as easily. Also, the movie doesn’t tie up all of it’s plot threads nicely, like why the stranger does what he does, but that’s okay because it leaves the viewer something to discuss with friends. What strengthens the movie is the amount of suspense in it. Not only are the first 20 minutes of the movie very suspenseful but there are a couple of good moments within the movie and the ending is superb (if not a bit unlikely). Most times a movie will advertise itself as being so scary that you shouldn’t watch it alone. But in the case of When a Stranger Calls Back (and the original When a Stranger Calls) the movie is much scarier when watched alone and not very scary at all when watched with another person.I really liked this movie and I highly recommended it if you like movies that scare through suspense rather then gore. This movie is a nice change of pace from your typical theatrical horror release (it was made for cable). When a Stranger Calls Back gets a 7 out of 10.

  • jennifer-james
    jennifer james

    The headline above seems to sum up some of the other reviewers’ opinions of this film and I totally agree with them: I liked this sequel better. I will always remember this film for the first 20-25 minutes which really scared me the first time I saw it. It gave me the creeps, and always will if I don’t watch it too often.After that, the movie settles down, and the excitement leaves, but it still keeps you interested, picking back up again at the end with another suspense scene.This is a “scare” movie – a sequel – that works although there are a few noticeable holes in the storyline. I liked the camera-work in here with the closeups of the door lock or the phone, the slowness of camera movement here and there to build suspense, etc. The ending, in which the killer blends into a wall, is very neat.The main actors are interesting to watch and a main plus is the lack of profanity, especially surprising with Charles Durning in the film. The “R” rating had to be for a couple of topless waitress scenes.Jill Schoelen gets third billing and she’s the star of the movie. Carol Kane, the star of the first film: When A Stranger Calls, helps out on this case, too, and it’s nice to see her again.

  • lawrence-brown
    lawrence brown

    I managed to get a DVD of this from the USA – it’s not available anywhere else. Picture and sound quality are superb – put on the DVD and play sound through the hi-fi or home cinema at high volume !! Every sound will scare you out of your wits. Continuous tension is maintained from beginning to end and there are alternating periods of silence and violent sounds ( even a door closing is frightening ). This means that throughout the film you are in a state of continuous nervous tension, for this reason I don’t think it is recommended for those who have a weak heart!My logical mind discerned a few holes in the plot and several things unexplained – what happened to the 2 children – why was this man persecuting her – how did Charles Durning manage to find the culprit so quickly – why did the baby sitter shoot herself of was it someone else etc etc…….. This said, these considerations are secondary when you consider the principal aim of the film is to provide undiluted suspense to the viewer and to have him or her feeling edgy throughout !! Also the ending is superb as is the disguise of the culprit. Ideally, one would have wished a slightly longer film which explained the character of the culprit a bit more and provided a clue to some of the “open” points listed above, but despite this, the film rates very highly with me. I have not yet seen the original film but after seeing this one, I’m going to doubtless enjoy that too…….in fact come to think of it I’m quite a fan of those films featuring burly American actors such as Charles Durning and Brian Dennehy …………..

  • anna-vlckova
    anna vlckova

    While most people claim that this belated sequel suffers in comparison to the overrated original, I really have to disagree. While the first half hour of the original was great, it was done in by an ill-conceived second act which introduced the creepy voice on the phone as a pathetic schlub, and thus greatly deflated the third act where the psycho comes after Carol Kane’s own children. The first half a hour of this sequel was as good as the original, but Fred Walton seemed to have learned his lesson and kept his psychopath creepy and mysterious in the last two acts. The only serious misstep this movie makes is trying to shoe-horn the original Carol Kane and Charles Durning characters into the plot. (What are the chances that Carol Kane’s Jill would become a counselor at a college where she would encounter someone who had been through almost the exact same ordeal that she had?) And, by the way, whatever happened to Jill Schoelen, the actress who plays Julie? She was the true heir to Jamie Lee Curtis’s “scream queen” title, not Linnea Quigley or some other untalented, serial bra-popper, yet this is the last horror movie I remember her appearing in.