This wasn't a bad or good movie. It was meh, dull and dragged in some parts. The settings were all bland and uninteresting. The pace was a little weird. The only thing I enjoyed was the premise. The plot is a woman moves into an apartment and immediately makes fast friends with the gardener / groundskeeper, who gives her information about previous tenants when asked throughout the movie. The main character starts getting calls from an old rotary phone. It's from a woman from the past. Main character does something that offends her and slowly present reality starts to change cause this upset woman from the past can change things.She puts a drawing in a cupboard, walls off a closet, kills the gardener (in the past), kills somebody else, etc. The woman starts to lose it and the movie ends with her killing her ex husband? I hate it when movies give these anti climatic, weird endings. Nothing really got resolved. Too bad.Anyway, there's some cool back and forth between the two female leads during some scenes. That's about all this movie has going for it.

Matt Parkhill's The Caller is a strange one. It's so well put together and performed that for the most part you really don't notice or care that it's storyline seems to invent it's own theory of relativity.It's not that the plot it presents is illogical or sloppy. It does make sense if you think about it (there are plenty of good explanations on the message boards to help you fill in the blanks). The problem is that it's so dense that it really needs about thirty more minutes of screen-time to explain itself. As a result, the last fifteen minutes of the film feel incredibly rushed and self-conscious.But aside from all that, for at least the first hour of this 90 minute thriller, The Caller is expertly paced, shot, and cut. There really isn't a dead space in that span of time and that's a lot to be proud of. Rachel Levebre and Stephen Moyer are ultra-engaging in the lead parts and veteran Luis Guzman lends solid comic-relief. And Lorna Raver pushes the voice of the telephonic antagonist to new levels of creepiness and psychosis. She's the ultimate geriatric scream queen. It's not a stretch to say Raver caps the whole film and turns it into a legit B-movie classic.The Caller is not perfect. It's rushed in parts, not always clear or concise, but it is unsettling, down to each moody frame. You may not completely get it on first viewing, but I'll bet you'll give it another try. It's a fun, if demented, time trip.

This movie has a genuinely great plot and to my surprise (and disappointment), I see many theories floating around the ending, when it is much clearer and simpler to comprehend.My personal view on the flaws of the movie are the following: • The characters lacked depth, especially for the main actress, Mary, who was a typical young woman, moving in a new apartment. There are some bits throughout the movie that I was convinced of her escalating fear, but I did not find her acting astounding. • The cast was pretty limited and solely served the plot's ending. Other than that, each presence was marginally useful. • The setting was also limited; everything was taking place in a house and its yard. I would like to see Mary's life and routine and how truly was she disoriented by the calls. The usual empathy that arises to the viewer did not occur to me, as I was unable to witness the struggle of hers to survive a scary voice. This is exactly why I think we should have more scenes of her life introduced to us, which would, by extension, elaborately enhance the character's traits and personality. • I would expect more scenes with Rose's presence, as if she haunts Mary's thoughts; this would have an eerie feeling that was admittedly missing from the movie. Shadow passing while she was sleeping, waking up by the tormentor's voice (Rose's), etc. These may be typical, but I would enjoy the film a lot more.I have rated the movie with 9/10 for its fantastic plot.I shall now hint out the ending and its interpretation:The people Mary met were not ghosts, whose bodies were recovered after years. Remember how Rose was calling from the past: this means that Mary's friend (John) was a child back then (Mary as well). Once Rose realized that she was threatened by John, who, without any hesitation, talked her out on the phone, she took him (in her time) as a child and killed him. Through this action, she changed the future. If she killed someone in the past, that person no longer exists in the future. Thus, he was not a ghost, it was that Rose changed the past and consequently, the future. This is why John's body was a child's, because if he was killed in Rose's era, he wouldn't grow up to be the person Mary met.There is also a question about how the past met the present (how did Rose break into Mary's house). Given Rose's resentment to Mary's behavior and persistent lies, she reached out to find Mary when she was a child (because Mary was a child in the year Rose was calling). Rose then made her suffer, which would in turn cause a trauma to Mary. She also spilled boiled water on her and this is why the marks started appearing on the adult Mary - because if Rose did this in the past, the present Mary would already have these marks on her. Since she bore this traumatic experience, she started reliving her past, when she was hearing her younger self on the phone. It was because Rose took her as a child and inflicted all of this psychological trouble on her that Mary would suddenly see Rose busting through the door, the way she did when Mary was a child. Obviously, as a child, she was indeed talking to her adult self, who guided her into locking herself in the bathroom.Finally, it has also been asked why she killed her ex. The explanation is pretty much answered above. Since Rose took her as a child and, as a consequence, changed Mary's today's mental state, the traumatic experience was channeled as aggressive behavior and psychological instability. This enabled her to engage in a criminal activity without a second thought (something that would never occur, if she had never answered the phone or had not provoked Rose).Even though the matter of how the subsequent calls from the past were achieved (as in how was the past bridged to the present) remained somehow transparent, a theory was still addressed by John, when he drew the curved line of time, with a break point on top, to give Mary an explanation.All in all, this was one of my favorite movies. It is rumored to have an open ending, but frankly, it is not as ambiguous as it is thought to be.

Thought this was going to be another 'the call is coming from inside the house' film. But this was completely different. Although I wouldn't say this is a horror film, it does have it's moments, especially near the end, which was brilliant. At first I wasn't sure where the film was going, so a woman from the past \ mad is calling you... change your number, but then you realize how if you annoy someone in the past, they can affect you, but there's nothing you can do to get to them, I think the ending comes together nicely, it didn't explain everything, but gives you enough to make your own conclusions. nice concept and different to the normal 'stranger calls female alone in the house' films