The original "When a Stranger Calls" from 1979 was a dynamite and effectively petrifying little horror sleeper. Why? Because of its very simplistic but nevertheless fascinating concept of a perverted maniac persistently stalking a defenseless babysitter through sinister phone calls. Even though the more routine middle part couldn't hold a candle to the masterful opening twenty ones, the wholesome should definitely be regarded as a modest and influential genre classic. And the last thing you can say about writer/director Fred Walton is that he exploited the success and promptly produced a series of inferior sequels. "When a Stranger Calls Back" is actually a rather belated follow-up, but unmistakably one that perfectly mirrors the original film. This second, made for television production, is even pretty much identical with the same narrative structure, atmosphere-building, lead characters and portrayal of the villain. There's the brilliantly tense and gripping opening, the tedious and somewhat annoying middle section and the short but powerful shock-climax. Cherubic and warm-hearted young babysitter Julia is babysitting one night when a supposedly stranded guy knocks on the door asking to use the telephone. Julia clearly watched enough old horror movies and is smart enough not to keep the front door shut, but the visitor refuses to go away and gradually fills Julia up with fear. The night ends tragically, when Julia suddenly stands face to face with a perpetrator in the hallway. Five years later, she's an eternally traumatized woman who seeks the help of Jill Johnson (the stalker victim of the original became a counselor) and her savior John Clifford; the former cop turned private detective. Addition spoiler warning: in the paragraph here below I will most likely reveal essential plot aspects from both the original and the sequel"When a Stranger Calls Back" is an adequate film and definitely guarantees some moments of genuine suspense. What I don't understand, however, is that many people seem to prefer the sequel over the original. I couldn't disagree more, mainly because the script of the original film is at least a dozen times more plausible in every imaginable department. First and foremost: the killer. The 1979 killer, Curt Duncan, was a 'realistic' psychopath. He stalked a girl and spent time in prison. He failed to fit into society and slowly found his way back to the girl for revenge. The psycho in this case is a ventriloquist, a master of disguise, a melodramatic philosopher and we're supposed to believe he left Julia alone during five whole years even though the police never picked up his trail? What kind of pathetic killer does that? Then there's the completely implausible return of Carol Kane's character Jill Johnson. It's already hard to accept that she became a psychological counselor after what happened to her, but now she helps another young girl who's going through pretty much the exact same ordeal as she did? Plus she's a lousy counselor, since you definitely don't encourage a manic depressed girl to buy a gun. Everybody complained how the middle section of the original nearly ruined the entire film, as it exposed the psychopath's whole persona and thus made him less menacing. Maybe so, but the middle section of the sequel definitely exaggerates in doing the complete opposite. Fred Walton attempts to make his villain so mysterious and introvert that it simply becomes ridicule. The ventriloquist act is downright pitiable and just a tad bit grotesque. There are numerous little details that don't make sense, but they're not immediately noticeable thanks to the good performances and compelling atmosphere. The more you contemplate about the story, though, the sillier it gets.

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.

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.

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.