Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Mehdi Hoffman There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

mdnobles19 An extremely amateurish rip off of When A Stranger Calls but unlike the well filmed, atmospheric remake of the 1970's chiller this one has balls. Right from the beginning of the film it has the feeling of unease and dread with brutal and effective yet generic kills that were disturbing and gutsy. This movie has a very visibly low budget and less than impressive acting that were the movie's downfall but the body count was decent and the killer was sadistic and stopped at nothing to bring fear to this poor babysitter and the stalk sequences though handled in a silly amateurish way did bring some suspense and creepyness to the film enough to make you look over your shoulder especially if you watch it alone in your home. The acting was beyond atrocious thanks to a horrible script and unoriginal story but towards the end it seems like everyone tried their best to step up their game which led to an effective, harrowing finale which might make you think twice about babysitting. Overall it's obviously a ripoff, unoriginal, flimsy but its brutality, creepyness and ballsy nature will creep under your skin, sure it wasn't amazing but as a generic rip off of stalk and slash it isn't half bad. Rent it. Have zero expectations, leave your brains at the door, grab some popcorn and enjoy. 6 out of 10

DaveP This is one of those movies from the studio known to put out similarly titled and themed DVD's to conveniently coincide with the real studio release movie. In this case we get When a Killer Calls, ripping on the Sony remake of When A Stranger Calls (2006). The movies are about an isolated teen babysitter getting terrorized by a prank caller. While Stranger was rated PG-13, Killer is unrated offering up graphic violence, nudity and language. Killer is obviously low budget, with passable-at-best special effects for the gore, though the acting is surprisingly decent for the most part. The storyline differs just enough from Stranger to keep them from getting sued, but it's your standard cliché slasher fare. I was expecting MUCH worse though.

disdressed12 i found this movie to be mostly a P.O.S.it was low budget,but that isn't the problem.the problem is,the movie is just lame.it doesn't really make a lot of sense.yes,it does explain why things happened,but that's not what i mean.there was just no reason for it all.the movie also moved very slow.the last ice age was quicker than this.also, i think they went overboard a bit in the kills.i don't mean they were too gross,but the killer just seemed to spend too much time smashing his victim over the head,or stabbing his victim. maybe i'm being petty,but i just didn't like the movie.the whole thing seemed like a lower rate version of "When a Stranger Calls" and maybe that was the whole point.but so what.for me "When A Stranger Kills" is a 4/10*

Firetears_X A lot of people find this movie to be something amazing, but I can't help but feel that the people voting for this film are people upset by the fact "When a Stranger Calls" didn't live up to their horror expectations.The producer must've got the entire cast and crew to come here and make "kick-ass movie!" comments because, unfortunately, no one with human taste would find this movie to be as good as they claim it to be.Watching this movie, I just can't help but feel this is done by a 17 year old dude who just learned a couple of new camera effects. The "special effects" in this film come up as high as weak lighting, twitchy cameras, and rain storms that doesn't even seem to cover an entire patio. Seriously, did these people use lamps and hose pipes for these effects? The deaths come up very short to today's standard creative deaths. Nothing but stabbings and slitting throats. And when I say nothing but, I mean it literally. It's 2006, at least someone could've burned! These stabbings (which looks VERY fake, by the way) just don't do for anyone anymore, it's not 1980 anymore.The characters are all predictable, and unlike it's alternate, "When a Stranger Calls" (which I think this title is only a lure for the emo-kiddies who were upset with the lack of gore from it's alternate), you have no reason to care for these characters. The protagonist, Trisha, comes up nothing bigger than the average blue-eyed teenage blondie with a hottie boyfriend, slutty attitude, and mistaken rep from the adults. She is the character we used to love to see get killed back in the early "Halloween" series. You know, back when characters were stereotyped. The only thing this movie is missing is the shower scene that literally turns into a blood bath.I do like the idea that this movie gives no mercy to the children. You rarely get to see children die, and if they do die, then you never get to see them actually get killed. It was actually disturbing but never done before. I doubt it'll start a new wave for the horror genre, but it's a good moment to look back on.The acting was... it was... unnoticeable. It's hard to throw a compliment or a complaint because I doubt you'll be paying attention. Not because the film itself is so engaging but because no one really cares about no name cast. I could easily talk about how the protagnist's, scared reactions and frightening faces come up super short but that would be like trying to prove to someone that a pickle is green.Overall, the only reason I might've given it this high of a number is because I was air-drunken enough to watch the fake ass looking slashes.