answer: excellent
paragraph_question: question: How good has this movie been until the end?, context: I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual.Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack.That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down.The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer.When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic.Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting.Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson.I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time.As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clich&eacute;d scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense.The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been.Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie.Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances. I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre. 
sentence: Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances.
paragraph: I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual.Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack.That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down.The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer.When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic.Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting.Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson.I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time.As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clich&eacute;d scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense.The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been.Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie.Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances. I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre. 
sentence_answer: Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with <hl> excellent <hl> performances.
paragraph_answer: I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual.Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack.That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down.The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer.When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic.Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting.Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson.I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time.As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clich&eacute;d scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense.The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been.Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie.Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with <hl> excellent <hl> performances. I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre. 
paragraph_sentence: I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual. Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack. That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down. The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer. When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic. Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting. Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson. I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time. As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a clich&eacute;d scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense. The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been. Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie. <hl> Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances. <hl> I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre.