Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Console best movie i've ever seen.

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

cmovies-99674 PROS: The best part about the movie would, hands down, be how scary it is. You really get taken aback by how frightening of an event this would be if it happened to you. The direct flawlessly sets up for a movie filled with paranoia and fear. From beginning to end you were delivered a film that grabs you and makes your skin crawl. Another thing that I really liked would have to be the character development. Although the acting wasn't super good, the way the main character was portrayed was nice. She was smart, and alert, and very capable which I like.CONS: The biggest thing to point out would be the acting. This movie gave off a very teen scream vibe, which isn't always bad, but it didn't work for this movie in particular. There was times where I felt the 911 operator was more realistic than the girl. The final thing that was really irksome was the ending. This ending did a crap job at everything an ending should do good at. It didn't clarify anything, it didn't leave me guessing or asking questions, and it certainly didn't have any relevance to the plot or story AT ALL. The whole premise of the ending was lacking and it certainly didn't help me develop the movie.www.chorror.com

laylastepford There are two ways this film can be rated: on it's own or compared to the original. Whether you have seen the original version of this film (1979) or not, makes a big difference on the way you see this version of the film. For that reason, I will rank the film in both ways:(1.) On It's Own (If you had never seen the original):Acting: 16/20 Writing: 30/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 34/40Overall: 80/100 B-Review: Almost the entire film revolves around the babysitter, which means Camilla Belle takes the brunt of the acting in this movie. She's not a bad actress nor an outstanding one and did a pretty solid job. She was pretty believable in her role but she didn't do anything special with it. The most important thing I can say about her performance is that while it didn't add anything special to the film, it also didn't take any value or integrity away from it.She did have a supporting cast but I doubt that any other character (aside from the Stranger/Caller) was in the film for more than 5 minutes total. All of the supporting cast had similar performances, credible and loyal to their roles.The plot of the script is very accurate to the most common versions of the legend and does a great job turning that "short story" into a full-length movie, without losing any of the suspense. That being said, there wasn't too much creativity in the script, as most of it does come straight from the legend.The flow and pacing of the film go well with the overall suspense in the movie. The soundtrack was like the acting - appropriate but not outstanding.Overall this film was a good Hollywood-stylized take on the now- famous "babysitter" urban legend.(2.) Compared To Original:Acting: 14/20 Writing: 13/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 37/40Overall: 64/100 DReview: This version makes A LOT of references to the original - from keeping the same character names for the babysitter and parents of the children being babysat, to the babysitter taking ice cream out of the fridge when checking and "securing" the house.In addition, the woman who plays Mrs. Mandrakis physically resembles Carol Kane, the main detective in this film physically resembles the detective in the original and even the Stranger in this film physically resembles Curt Duncan from the original.Camilla Belle does a much better acting job than Carol Kane, undoubtedly.*Spoiler Alert!*This version of the film focuses solely on the legend itself, whereas the legend was only the first 20 minutes of the original film. As a result, this version is not nearly as creative and entertaining as the original. There is really something to be said about the originality in the script and the performance of Tony Beckley as Curt Duncan in the original film; These factors make the original a much more timeless-classic than this newer version, especially by comparison.The writing in this version took no risks, and the result was a more consistent script than the original but less of a long-lasting impression. By comparison to the first 20 minutes of the original film, this version only really improved in the acting department - otherwise it was just a longer version of the same thing with less impact.The Stranger in this version is also a let-down in comparison to the Curt Duncan character in the original. It's understandable that the newer version had a phenomenal performance to contend with, that would likely not be upstaged, but the decision to replace it with a Michael Myers type version instead was a real bummer.After seeing the original, you even miss the detective's performance as it was such a compelling character.*End of Spoiler Alert!*All of that being said, the newer version is definitely an improvement where you'd expect it to be the most, in the directing/editing/producing departments. This newer film is visually done in a much more stylized, Hollywood manner that has a lot of entertainment value. That being said, it loses some of the "authentic" look that the older version has, which is a shame as the "authentic" look worked better for this kind of scary story and added more of a timeless feel/quality to it.Overall this newer version really lacks in originality of script, characters and performance compared to the original - yet is still watchable as a tribute to the original legend and film. However, if possible, I'd recommend watching the newer version before watching the original version, so as to enjoy both more. (Otherwise watching the original will very likely ruin the newer one for you by comparison.)Overall Score As Original + Remake Together: Acting: 15/20 Writing: 21/40 Directing/Editing/Production/Etc: 36/40Overall: 72/100 C-

avikar-a-r The first thing that grabbed my attention about this film is that it boasted an attractive cast.The acting isn't that bad, the film fails to deliver solid thrills but I still found it satisfyingly interesting.There are ways it could have been better, or worse, but in the end its actually worth a watch. Camilla Belle portrays her innocent babysitter bring stalked by a serial killer role quite well. Its ending is predictable but we've seen worse. It may not go down as one of the greatest thrillers but it certainly does enough to earn a possible 're-watch' in the future.

Dom Nickson Spoiler Alert! This movie had a decent opening I suppose and sort of good character build up, but for the most part it was missing the kills any normal slasher fan would want. In fact, you never see anybody die which is really kind of a disappointment. The movie had some good scary and suspenseful scenes like this scene where Jill is outside and she sees the silhouette of a man in the window, walking back and forth. Another decent scene is when she is hiding in the pond, under the bridge, and sees the maid's body, truly intense. The killer's identity is never really explained and it has a great atmosphere but besides that the movie is truly boring and not enough kills. It also has sort of an unhappy ending where Jill seems to have gone completely insane. Overall I give it a 5 out of 10.