MovieChat Forums > When a Stranger Calls (1979) Discussion > The fattest, dumpiest hero ever pitted a...

The fattest, dumpiest hero ever pitted against the wimpiest villian ever

posted 15 years ago by tmitch-1
21 replies | jump to latest

The first part is pretty good - although it's just a dramatization of an urban legend that was already at least a decade old in 1979.

After that, it's pretty much just an entire hour of the oldest, fattest, dumpiest hero ever chasing after the wimpiest, most pathetic villian ever.

Worse, the movie never even tried to explain why these guys were so pathetic. Maybe if the short, rotund ex-cop was an alcoholic, or had had a heart bypass or something. Nope, I guess we we're just supposed to believe that this is your typical hard-boiled ex-cop. And I know that Charles Durning is a notable actor; I guess he was supposed to be the answer to Donald Pleasance in Halloween. But come on - Charles Durning just isn't Dirty Harry!!

And the villian had to be the wimpiest, most pathetic excuse for a bad guy this side of the Looney Toons. Wile E. Coyote, Yosemite Sam and Sylvester combined get beat up fewer times than this guy!

And again, no explanation for how in the world a guy who is supposed to be a ruthless killer can also be so incredibly wimpy. Take the scene where he gets the snot beat out of him in the bar. If he had come back and laid some sadistic trap or something for the guy who beat him up, that might have added something. But no, he gets totally pounded, cries like a little girl, and runs away - end of story. Can you IMAGINE how the bar bully would have ended up if he had tried that on Hannibal Lecter??!!

Anyways, if I'm ever stalked by an ex-cop on a blood hunt, or a serial killer - PLEASE let it be the ex-cop or the serial killer from this movie!!

[–] novastar_6 15 years ago

And why do we need an explanation? Do we need an explanation when we hear the urban legend of the babysitter and the man upstairs just WHY or HOW the killer kills the children? No, but the legend still works. Killers are scarier when people don't know they why or how in the things they do, take away the mystery and it's no longer scary.

[–] dogstar21 14 years ago

The original post is hilarious and accurate as hell. I couldn't agree more!

[–] ValerinAmberz 14 years ago

Actually I think tony beckley makes the scariest villain ever. I liked the idea of making him vulnerable at times. Just like real killers, that's what made it so scary. I think he perfectly portrayed someone disturbed and capable of killing. It was a multi layered portrait, and some scenes are really freaky, like the one where he's nude in the bathroom and looking in the mirror (if I remember the scene correctly).

Killers who are killers because of mental insanity are both victims, weak and vulnerable, and a time bomb and manipulative and impossible to read. Tony beckley was great in my opinion. Much more realistic than some michael myers killing machine. It's not often you see murderers that are also "wimps"...anthony perkins in psycho is another example :)

well since you're naked you might as well f___ a friend of mine. Paul come in here!

[–] Churchchick 14 years ago

Well if you think about it he only terrorizes WOMEN. So, when he was beaten up by a MAN he wasn't really used to that or prepared.

This movie was INTENSELY scary from the opening scene to the last extremely creepy scene and WAY better than the remake.

It is easier to critique than create

[–] lobotomyboy63 14 years ago

I think it's an artifact of the past, in a way.

These days, we're so used to seeing buff cops fight buff villains, driving high powered cars and using high tech equipment. You'd think when your dog goes missing, Sylvester Stallone's going to use the crime lab from CSI down at the local police station to crack the case. No email, no cell phones, etc. in this one---no big car crashes, no TNA. Just a story.

"War Games" was on TV the other day and I marveled at how primitive the computers were. Of course, when I saw it in theaters I marveled at how advanced they were.

I can understand people being distracted by what's portrayed vs. what we have now. In this story, it doesn't bother me a bit but your mileage may vary.

Actually I find the villain scary as hell, especially in the bathroom scene mentioned above.

[–] maximumxxxx 12 years ago

"This movie was INTENSELY scary from the opening scene to the last extremely creepy scene and WAY better than the remake."

What? The first and last 15 minutes are the only good parts in this movie,

"Im not gonna kill you till you cum" - Thursday (1998)

[–] jtfriday2000 12 years ago

What? The first and last 15 minutes are the only good parts in this movie,

I agree with this completely. After the first 15 minutes, the movie lost steam. The remake kept tension throughout and it was cool how it stayed in one location.

My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?

[–] BatPopsicle 8 years ago

Oh come on, the remake was horrible. It's for people who like their movies spoon-fed to them. Give the original another chance and you'll see how superior it is.

[–] Kimrubymoon 8 years ago

Well said, ValerinAmberz! I've said similar points throughout this board on different threads. It's amazing how many people out there have no understanding of various mental illnesses.

[–] ShyLivesMatter 14 years ago

LOL I liked how they made the killer all scared of confrontation with the raging testosterone guy. Made me feel sorry for him, weird feeling to feel for a child killer. Also made me wonder what I'd do if I was in a bar and macho dude was all up in my face like that after I've already been constantly rejected - I can't imagine it being a pleasant feeling. Too bad that guy probably lived :-)

"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."

[–] lorddeano 14 years ago

I think think the killer was cast pefect!!
Its that exact kinda guy that would prey on women and kill children in their beds!!

"What your mother and I must know, is.."

[–] Nephilim-6 14 years ago

Also you gotta realize his meds were starting to wear off.

I thought the middle part while admittedly a tad too long had purpose to show the killer unravel to his former self while the behavioral meds were wearing off.

Did you ever notice that people who believe in creationism look really un-evolved? - Bill Hicks

[–] tcg-2 13 years ago

"The fattest, dumpiest hero ever pitted against the wimpiest villian ever"

They were probably a lot closer to real life 'heroes' and 'villains' than most other hollywood fare. have you ever seen what real cops and serial killers look like?

[–] kytem2 12 years ago

According to his wikipedia page, <<the killer>> (I did not include his name here in case it spoils it)

"was terminally ill at the time of filming When a Stranger Calls in 1979, and died of cancer shortly after principal photography was completed (spring 1980)."

[–] yeoffthecat 13 years ago

I agree with you. If the detective had been Dirty Harry, there wouldn't be a story.

I live in a glass house, ergo, I throw no stones.

[–] ricky_may1 13 years ago

Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs

Francis Dolarhyde in Red Dragon

Curt Duncan is a great example of a good killer. vulnerable and scary at the same time.

[–] wrlord2001 12 years ago

Charles Durning was brilliant as a cop -- that's why he played so many of them over the years. I guess you just don't know many cops.

[–] Edward_de_Vere 11 years ago

Worse, the movie never even tried to explain why these guys were so pathetic. Maybe if the short, rotund ex-cop was an alcoholic, or had had a heart bypass or something. Nope, I guess we we're just supposed to believe that this is your typical hard-boiled ex-cop. And I know that Charles Durning is a notable actor; I guess he was supposed to be the answer to Donald Pleasance in Halloween. But come on - Charles Durning just isn't Dirty Harry!!

And the villian had to be the wimpiest, most pathetic excuse for a bad guy this side of the Looney Toons. Wile E. Coyote, Yosemite Sam and Sylvester combined get beat up fewer times than this guy

And again, no explanation for how in the world a guy who is supposed to be a ruthless killer can also be so incredibly wimpy. Take the scene where he gets the snot beat out of him in the bar. If he had come back and laid some sadistic trap or something for the guy who beat him up, that might have added something. But no, he gets totally pounded, cries like a little girl, and runs away - end of story. Can you IMAGINE how the bar bully would have ended up if he had tried that on Hannibal Lecter??!!

What an inane post.

I hate to break it to you, but most cops (or retired cops) are not muscle-bound action heroes, and most serial killers aren't invincible, suave geniuses like Hannibal Lecter. If you want an accurate picture of what your typical serial killer is like, think Jeffrey Dahmer (who was beaten to death by a cellmate) - somebody who preys on the weak because he himself is pathetic and weak.