whineycracker2000

I find it baffling that this 1979 horror film has a meager 38% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. While not without its flaws, a large portion of "When a Stranger Calls" is first-rate, and the opening twenty minutes is arguably one of the closest experiences to a nightmare ever captured on film (right up there with Suspiria and Chainsaw 74).

A key contributing factor to 'Stranger's effectiveness (in addition to its marvelous, gut-wrenching score) is Carol Kane, who is astonishing. I have probably studied the first act at least fifty times just to try and figure out how she managed to be so damn convincing. The way she pleads with the sergeant on the phone ("Please can't you help me, I'm all alone here?") feels so genuine that one has to wonder if something horrific was occurring behind the scenes, as not once does it come across as rehearsed or staged. Whether through her expressive eyes, the slightest facial twitch, her body language, the way she clears her throat when talking to the killer in the final moments, or each quivering breath, Kane sells every moment. You can practically hear what she is thinking as the seconds roll by. She demonstrates a level of acting that rarely exists anymore in the genre and makes Jamie Lee Curtis's in Halloween seem pretty overrated by comparison. Kane's performance illustrates a key difference between mediocre and excellent actors: the former have to manufacture their tears, while the latter have to suppress them.

The film requires patience. Younger viewers who find it tame and underwhelming must remember when it was released. Serial killers such as Gacy, Bundy, The Golden State Killer, and Dahmer, among others, were unfortunately all too pervasive in the 70s, which is why I think movies like Carpenter's 'Halloween', and 'Stranger' resonated so much with the movie-going public: their stories were set in the same type of suburban landscapes where the audiences resided. I can understand how the scare factor could be lost on newer generations since they lose the benefit of context. However, the type of terror and fear on display here is so intimate and universal that I can't fathom anybody not being put under the spell of the first and final acts.

'Stranger's sharp left turn into the meandering second act is the most oft-cited bone of contention for the film's detractors, and this is perfectly understandable. But despite being narratively incongruent, it does serve a purpose and is not without merit: Beckley is excellent, for starters- giving an eerily understated performance as the demented Kirk Duncan, portraying him less as a boogeyman and more of a tortured soul who is broken, corroded, and incorrigible - not a Michael, Freddy, or Jason, but somebody that any of us could have met in passing to whom we never gave a second thought (through a haunting flashback sequence, we are given a frightening glimpse into his twisted inner life- rendering his gruesome acts all the more plausible). Colleen Dewhurst is in top form as a gruff, hardheaded loner who exists in the same rotting Los Angeles underworld where Duncan wanders hopelessly. Their brief encounter plays out like some cosmic, anti-meet-cute, and the two's interactions are tense, yet organic. We never quite learn why she welcomes this strange creature into her company, but there is a fleeting moment when it teases a meaningful connection might form between them, possibly leading to a redemptive arc. While this never comes to fruition, the outcome does add a fascinating angle to the story: it's as if the universe was cruelly dangling a carrot in front of Duncan- and the viewer- only for him to end up in the same place, his fate tragically sealed.

The final act of 'Stranger' shifts back to horror/thriller mode and rewards audiences for sticking out the arguably over-extended subplot involving John Clifford (Charles Durning), the detective who has been on a seven-year hunt for Duncan. The film may have inched closer to greatness had director Fred Walton shaved off 15-20 minutes from the second act and used that extra time to focus on Jill's family. However, he does give us a satisfying, hair-raising finale that brings the story full circle.

Of course, 'Stranger' is not a horror classic on the same level as "Exorcist" or "Psycho". The shock factor peaks so early on that it would have been impossible for the film to sustain the same level of tension throughout. But it proves to be more than just a one-trick pony, as the story is surprisingly more layered than one would expect, warranting repeat viewings. Similar to Silence of the Lambs, it blurs the lines between crime, horror, and character study, and therefore is not always on the radar of genre scholars and fans. Any aspiring filmmaker could certainly learn a thing or two from Walton on how to frighten a viewer on the most primal level, however.

Despite being rough around the edges, 'Stranger' is a landmark work in its off-brand way, and its influence on the genre has been underestimated for far too long. It's time that it is recognized as a contributive work of art rather than a mere footnote within the pantheon of B-horror to which it has been relegated.

It must be a dauntless undertaking to create a sequel in a 40-year franchise that breathes new life-especially because the original's storyline was about as barebones as one can get. Nonetheless, it has been fascinating to witness the myriad attempts, and "Ends" is certainly no exception.

The final installment in David Gordon-Green's reboot/trilogy seems to have amassed a considerably larger number of detractors than admirers-making it the most divisive "Halloween" film in recent memory. But we must give credit where credit is due: even though its narrative departure does feel like an insensitive bait and switch on the part of the filmmakers, 'Ends' is an admittedly ambitious and relatively refined piece of filmmaking compared to the previous two installments (although the 2018 entry will always remain my personal favorite of the three). Green wisely keeps the story planted in the present, for starters- focusing more on immediate human conflict and less on fulfilling fan service quotas through constant callbacks. Technically, it has stepped it up a notch as well: the cinematography is less imitative than that of the 2018 film and "Kills"; Carpenter's score is more restrained; the acting is some of the best in the entire franchise; and the atmosphere is considerably bleaker. Storyline controversy notwithstanding, there is much to appreciate here.

I also maintain- and this no doubt will be a controversial opinion- that 'Ends' comes closer to the original in terms of realism than most of the series' follow-ups. David Gordon Green has demonstrated through his filmography that he understands the rhythm and flow of life in small-town America, effectively incorporating this into the Halloween universe. This quality, which made the original so grounded and intimate, is prominently felt here. The characters in 'Ends', even the returning key players, somehow feel more like real people than prior iterations, and watching Laurie and company grapple with their bizarre set of circumstances makes for some compelling stuff, replacing the conventional scare factor with a palpable tension rooted in moral ambiguity and existential anxiety. And paradoxically, showing less of Michael somehow makes him feel that much more threatening. Had Green's approach to the material been at the service of a more traditional Halloween film template, he may have been able to match the level of terror and suspense achieved in the original and ended the saga with a visceral bang.

I certainly understand the disappointment and frustration 'Ends' has caused viewers who were anticipating the type of film that the trailers misleadingly promised. Maybe after all the dust has settled, they can revisit it with a fresh perspective and appreciate its positive aspects, for which there are many. 'Ends', like 'Halloween 3', marches to the beat of its drum and should have been a standalone project. That doesn't mean that what's on offer here is not effective in its own right.

I am confident that someday we will get a "Halloween" film that ticks every requisite box in one fell swoop. Until then, we should be grateful to Green for approaching the beloved property as legitimate art and not just with a "director for hire" mindset. Hopefully, this will encourage the studio heads to continue seeking the level of talent capable of creating the quintessential "Halloween" film for which fans have been so patiently waiting.

And hey, we finally got a "muzak" version of "Don't Fear the Reaper". That's some consolation, right?