MovieChat Forums > When a Stranger CallsĀ (1979) Discussion > Ok so like half of the film was pointles...

Ok so like half of the film was pointless (spoilerzzzzzz)


OK so did anyone feel like half of the film was pointless. Like the guy is in search of the killer but then never catches him and then it goes back to the lady from the beginning 10 years or so later. Yeah i thought the film was great and did make me jump at parts but, i felt that it could have been written a little better...ya know???

reply

It's still better than the remake. In this movie, the guy kills the kids, he gets put away, he breaks out, he finds somebody else to take an interest in, the police are trying to catch him and enlist in the aid of this woman to do so, THEN the killer finds out his last victim is still around and with children of her own, so he moves on back to her.

reply

The film had an awesome ending I must say. But I admit that the film did drag on a little bit for me. I am still glad that I watched it though. It was interesting to make comparisons with this film and the remake. I found that there were things I liked and disliked about both films.

"See you space cowboy...."

reply

Even if it did drag on a bit it was still a great movie. The middle part is important because it builds up to the final scene in Jill's home. Honestly, I thought the film played out perfectly, there are so few horror/thrillers that focus on an actual story and character development like this one. You cannot say that the part where Curt stalks Tracy throughout the city or the scene in the men's rescue mission is not creep as *beep*.

reply

[deleted]

I feel that way also. I find the remake of the film to be much better.

reply

I really love the beginning when JIll is in the house baby sitting and is terrorized. But the middle with the woman with the black hair and the fat detective was pointless, it became very boring but when they went back to Jill again and now she has her own family, the film picked up again great...8/10

MYSPACE

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&f riendid=387606505

reply

I really love the beginning when JIll is in the house baby sitting and is terrorized. But the middle with the woman with the black hair and the fat detective was pointless, it became very boring but when they went back to Jill again and now she has her own family, the film picked up again great...


That's exactly the way how I feel about it. I wish the film was more focused on Carol Kane's character much more instead of that pointless-endless middle part.

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

reply

I was really surprised by the plot of this film after seeing the remake first (which I hated). I assumed this film would focus solely on a girl being terrorized by phone calls while she's babysitting. I understand what you mean in terms of the middle part though- the film is somewhat disjointed. The beginning and ending make up one film and the middle make up another. It's still a million times better than the remake though.

reply

I must confess that I enjoyed the remake, which I saw first, ignoring back then about the original 1979 movie. But I have to agree with you about the original should have focussed mainly on Carol Kane's character. It would have been just 1.000 times better and way more entertaining, as she's such a terrific actress and the atmosphere inside that house was just perfect in order to expand the suspense for much longer.

Even though the stalking to the other woman by the killer was somewhat disturbing, like you said, it would have been just great for them to take that direction and expand it in a deeper way... but for another movie. I wouldn't have minded at all had this movie lasted only one hour or so had it been focused on Carol's character only; the middle part gives just too much information on the killer's day after day and such, which we just don't need to know much about, spoiling the mystery. It's always much more frightening to ignore who he really is or what he really wants (well, at least for me ).

A great film though; the scene when she's finally running away from the house and Charles Durning's face suddenly appears, making you think that he's the bad guy instead of the police, as well as the ending, when she finds out that the killer was laying down next to her, were just terrific and very well filmed, and still give me goose bumps when I think about them!

Animal crackers in my soup
Monkeys and rabbits loop the loop

reply

It felt more like a completely different film, I enjoyed it, but if I'd seen it in theaters in 79 I'd imagine being pretty ticked about it after being pulled by a Suspense Thriller..

"When the chips are down... these Civilized people... will Eat each Other"

reply

SPOILERS WARNING





The middle part of the film is NOT pointless because if it wasn't for John Clifford doing his private investigating so he could track the killer and kill him, he never would have been called by his friend, Lt. Charlie Garbar (who knew about John's revenge plot to kill Curt Duncan), who gave him the tip about Duncan calling Jill at the resteraunt. So John Clifford calls Jill's house the same night to see what's going on only to find out the phone line is disconnected. Then John Clifford takes it upon himself to pay Jill's house a visit, where ultimately, he saves her life by shooting Curt Duncan before he can kill Jill.

So to say the whole middle part was pointless is very incorrect, the beginning, the middle, and the end all connect very well in my opinion...Thank you.

I am the eater of worlds!!!

reply

It was absolutely pointless. They were off to a good start with Jill and the children, but then they cut it to that Tracy woman then back to Jill when the movie was almost over. Wtfish? Whose story were they suppose to be telling? It made no sense whatsoever.

reply

Are you sure you're not a proudblonde?



I am the eater of worlds!!!

reply

Right on, Chicken Francese! Right on. These people on these boards amaze me. I didn't realize so many people were incapable of intelligent thought and interested in the deeper psyche of Kurt. All these desensitized younger people today just want 90 mins of fast paced blood and gore. Most of them are clearly not capable of critical thinking.

reply

Agree 100%.

reply

Not really. I saw this movie when it came out, as a teenager, and the whole middle of the film is like a different movie. It made little sense then and it makes little sense now. I just watched it recently again, and was struck by how schizophrenic this movie is. Nothing wrong with following the psychopathic killer after he escapes, but the Tracy woman and her bar exploits and inexplicable long walk home just don't fit in with the action as established. Perhaps if Kurt had been stalking a mother with kids, and we see his deeper psyche, as you call it, instead of with some random lady we never built rapport with, it might have helped the situation.

It's a poorly constructed film, and it suffers for it.

reply

Anyone who says that it was boring or that it didn't even make sense is not interested in psychology or educated about the human psyche. Very sad.

reply