No murder weapon?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — When a Stranger Calls
proudbrunette — 14 years ago(May 26, 2011 02:21 PM)
The killer was supposed to have mutilated the children so badly they needed six days of work to reconstruct their bodies. How could he have done that with just his hands?
-
novastar_6 — 14 years ago(December 23, 2011 11:19 PM)
The 70s had a lot of horror where people did things that were so unspeakable, some that left us wondering HOW can a person do this?, WHY do they do it?, and this is an example of it. It's scarier because we don't see WHAT he did to them, we just know he did something so horrible and he didn't even need a weapon to do it.
-
novastar_6 — 14 years ago(March 02, 2012 09:54 PM)
Now that is true, you can be sure if it was possible to do it without a weapon, if anybody would've found that out, that would've been in the concentration camps during the Holocaust, the things they did to some of those children it wouldn't surprise me.
-
Romasanta — 13 years ago(November 19, 2012 03:40 AM)
I think, given enough time, it would be entirely possible to mutilate someone beyond recognition with your teeth and fingernails, just tearing off smallish chunks of flesh at a time.
credo quia absurdum est -
VWstarwars — 13 years ago(January 06, 2013 08:34 AM)
It's not bad writing & it most certainly is not a bad movie. I just read a whole line up of mindless smearing based on a lack of imagination from the OP & others. LOL! Wow. Somebody saying bad writing just sounds like a stock answer to make out as if they really know what they're talking about. "I'll just say bad writing & that'll make me sound intelligent."
I'd say most killers aren't crazy enough to kill children let alone mutilate them, yet it does happen. It was to make the audience aware of how insane this guy is & it really isn't impossible for an adult (who would have to be completely evil, heartless & insane) to do what he did. It doesn't happen very often because most killers aren't insane & want to get away with their crimes. This guy was so crazy & sick that he actually took the time to dismember 2 little children, not worrying about getting caught & was even mentally messing with the babysitter while he was doing it. Having this image be brought through dialog, instead of what has now become common, predictable & unexciting (showing it,) is brilliant. Today we would get the flashback shots with the voice over and a couple of flashes thrown in with punctuating crashing noises in between edits for good measure. How many times have we seen that today? Creating it with just the dialog is far more effective & more focused on the story instead of distracting, boring & unnecessary effects that really don't amount to much anyway. Sorry & I beg to differ. This movie is far better than the remake & just as good, if not better, than most thrillers today! -
Kimrubymoon — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 05:39 AM)
Absolutely! I couldn't have said it better myself! And yesI'm sure it is POSSIBLE. My Grandmother worked as a nurse at one of the old state hospitals for the insane. She told me stories of disturbed people with superhuman strength and will. I don't doubt for a minute that Kurt Duncan could have dismembered two small children.
I agree that the lack of actual grisly scenes DOES only make it more creepy and effective. All these kids today (or even those who are now in their 20's) are soooo desensitized, that they need that blood and gore and fast action to feel it. It's sad actually.
This is one of my favorite movies ever because unlike the "B type" slasher flicks, it's suspenseful and psychological.
And the most creepy thought:
THIS COULD ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE! That is always what does it for me. Sure, I like the Halloweens and the Friday the 13th movies but c'mon.no one gets shot, stabbed etc For years on end and doesn't die.
Give me this one, or the Shining any day -
Theodor_Birch — 12 years ago(April 24, 2013 12:10 PM)
Slavoz Zizek has some wonderful comments on this film in his book "Enjoy your symptom!" and if we continue his chain of thoughts - "riff" - we'd see that the fact that the killer used his bare hands is a further way of speaking of the "unspeakable" horror of his actions.
We are dealing with a tremendous crime, a crime born out of the human condition itself ("look at what we produce!").
It's exaggerated - for sure - for for an affect, it tells us that this "unknown" (which, remember, "came from within the house") was a demoniacal force of pure evil.
"The evil inside", if you will, who needs to weapons, only rage and desire (or a negative desire) to fully desecrate its environ.
Taken this way, by being so extreme, so over-the-top, by pushing the envelope, it becomes symbolic, or you could say, to truly (re-)present how heinous this crime is, it had to be done without weapons Only that way does it imply how it would appear within the mind (There is a blurring of imagination and reality in these kinds of films). There is no mediator between the rage and its affect.
A pure act. -
euro4569 — 12 years ago(September 25, 2013 06:18 AM)
You can bet you last penny on that friends. There are PLENTY of people out there like Curt Duncan and I mean PLENTY. If people are so mentally sick, angry, etc, they could do anything shocking or disturbing. Have you ever been so angry or mad that you did something and later think, 'how in the hell did you manage to do it'? We don't really know about Curt's past or situation but judging by what we did see, he had to have been disturbed for a very long while. The more it builds up, the more destructive it is.
Although they didn't use their bare hands, Jamie Bulger's killers fits the Curt Duncan type (innocent and weak looking but pure evil behind their eyes).