Director: Michael Anderson
Cast: Richard Chamberlain, John Houseman, Sara Botsford

Though everyone reading this review has had a completely unique upbringing and life, I think that everyone can agree on me with one certain point: It sure is difficult to not only kill somebody, but then subsequently getting away the murder. Believe me, with all of my experience I have constantly thought of possibilities to knock someone off, but I always think of ways that it could go wrong. Shooting somebody? How to get a gun... shoot the victim without anybody being alerted by the noise of the shot... then getting rid of the gun and any possible forensic evidence... there are countless problems. You can also come up with similar problems with stabbing someone to death. Poison does seem like a sneaky way to kill someone, but it seems that every poison possible out there can be detected during an autopsy. There was one time where I thought I was going to get proper instruction as to how to poison somebody and get away with it. One day I was reading a reprint of an E.C. horror comic, and the story concerned a man wondering how to kill his wife and not get caught. So he went to the library to research poisons, and during his reading he came across a book that stated that two normally harmless chemicals, when mixed together, would result in the creation of a deadly poison that could not be traced post mortem. Unfortunately, the names of the two chemicals listed in the speech balloon had been covered with CENSORED and CENSORED, and at the bottom of the comic panel there was a note from the editor saying something to the effect of, "Naturally, for obvious reasons we felt we shouldn't identify these two chemicals... hence the censorship of these common chemicals." Curses, foiled again.

To this day I wonder what those two chemicals were. Though since a lot of time has passed since the original printing of the comic, maybe forensic science now knows how to detect that unique poison. As I consider that, I am starting to see that the solution to kill somebody and get away with it may be with the use of a new kind of technology that might not be detectable at first, or even ever. For example, why not television? It may seem silly to think of that at first. But the idea was probably first brought up way back with the 1935 Bela Lugosi movie Murder By Television. In the years since then, who hasn't heard of stories of people getting epileptic fits and seizures while watching certain television programs, such as the famous time an episode of Pokémon caused many kids in Japan to get seizures. So it seems logical that maybe the boob tube could be refined in a way to make someone pass away. Who knows the potential of 8K or 16K televisions in the future? Another way of knocking somebody off in the 21st century would be to use the computers and Internet. As you know, already smart technology is being exploited to let hackers into the homes of innocent people; it's conceivable the hackers could take it a step further and do something to kill a person in his or her home. A third possibility is to send something over the air. Do you remember several years ago what started to happen in Cuba? Diplomats stationed in that country started to complain of headaches and other medical problems, and evidence strongly suggested that some foreign government was using some kind of new broadcast system to direct signals to the offices and residential homes of the diplomats.

The possibilities of modern technology to kill people are endless. But as you probably know, there haven't been a great number of movies made that involve this subject. Why? I think that often the idea of such a murder sounds so fantastic that it results in the murder sequence coming across as lazy writing. It's so easy to get a robot to kill a human, but most people in the audience won't have enough high-tech knowledge to know the precise details the murderer did to pull off the entire scheme. Without knowing the precise details, viewers won't be able to relate to the execution of the murder very well. Still, there have been attempts by moviemakers to depict murders by high tech means. Even Canadians got into the act at least once when the movie Bells (later retitled Murder By Phone) first came out more than 40 years ago, involving a serial killer using the telephone system to do his dirty work. While as you can see that the era the movie was made in wasn't as high tech as what we experience today, I thought the movie might compensate by having an interesting retro feeling, as well as maybe having some moments creepy and/or bloody. The events of the movie take place in some unidentified North American city, where Richard Chamberlain (The Count Of Monte Cristo) plays Nat Bridger, a professor at a local university. His work at the university is interrupted when the daughter of a friend is mysteriously killed in the depths of a subway system. Bridger decides to investigate despite local police lieutenant Meara (Gary Reineke, Rituals) being on the case. It doesn't take long for Bridger to discover that the victim was apparently killed by some sort of strong electronic signal coming out of a pay phone at the subway station. Fortunately, Bridger is friends with Stanley (John Houseman, Old Boyfriends), a consultant for the telephone company, and soon starts to get aid in his investigation. At the same time, Bridger strikes up a romance with an artist named Ridley (Sara Botsford, Deadly Eyes), but all of this help and support might not be enough for Bridger to find the culprit, despite the fact the culprit starts to rack up more victims on his or her kill list by the same modus operandi used on the first victim.

As you could probably see from the plot description for Bells, the premise of people getting killed by answering the phone teeters on the fine line between believability and silliness. As to what side the movie ultimately falls on, I can say pretty confidently say that the story is taken very seriously for the most part. That's not to say that I didn't have any issues with the unfolding story. But before getting to that, I will mention there was one thing about this particular story that I appreciated., that being the mystery angle. When the character of Nat Bridger starts his investigation, it evolves in a very believable manner. He makes a few small investigation stabs at first, because he's a little unsure. When his small investigation bear fruit, he starts to make more of an effort, and he continues to increase his investigation for the rest of the movie. This was easy to buy, especially since at the same time the investigation never gets particularly confusing for the audience to follow. Mysteries often throw me, so I really appreciated being on the ball at all times. At the same time, however, the mystery has some pointed questions that are either only revealed (very quickly) in the final few moments (why the university student was killed, what the killer's motivations are, etc.), or not answered at all (how did the killer get his equipment, as well as knowledge of how to kill through phone lines?) Also, the subplot involving the characters of Nat and Ridley sparking up a romance while investigating together never really seems to have any other purpose other than both providing some kind of female lead and to bring up a new potential victim for the killer to knock off.

In the end, the character of Ridley just seems to be a device to extend the narrative rather than play an important role. As it turns out, this is not the only use of padding Bells uses. There are a number of sequences that are extended past the breaking point, and as a result there are a lot of long and dull stretches. You'll be snapping at the movie a number of times to just get on with it. (I watched the original uncut version of the movie with the knowledge that it was shortened by about 15 minutes by its American distributor; this may be a time where cutting down a finished movie improved things.) This overlength often makes it difficult for director Michael Anderson (Orca) to build a consistent feeling of uneasiness and tension. I will admit, however, that the scenes where people are killed when using the phone are pretty well done. There is an uneasy feeling as these sequences start, and they all end with a big jolt, each with a unique touch that makes them stand out from each other. (Alas, though there is eye bleeding and people being zapped with great force that flings them across rooms, there are no heads exploding.) Also, director Anderson does manage to often make then modern technology a little unsetting to behold, even for audiences today. You get the feeling that you can't grasp even a little of its full potential, which makes that uneasy feeling. And thanks to the Canadian tax shelter system that was around at the time, Anderson had a very decent budget to work with. The movie looks very good, with professional photography and lighting, shooting in actual locations such at the Toronto subway system and the behind the scenes working of the phone company, and with many little but noticeable touches ranging from ample set dressings to dozens of extras making every which way around in the backgrounds.

It's clear that director Anderson was trying hard with what he had with this movie, but the script was holding him back in some areas, not just with the many extended sequences and the unanswered questions. There are also some character weaknesses, not just with the Ridley character. We never really get a chance to get a really good idea of the killer. He's mostly offscreen or has his face concealed, and when his is fully showcased, we learn very little about him. As a result, he doesn't come across as dangerous or frightening, which robs the movie of some potential tension. Police lieutenant Meara, who is investigating the murders, barely has more time than the killer onscreen, and his constant fighting with protagonist Bridger until near the end just adds a level of frustration. Somewhat better is the character of Bridger's mentor Stanley. Actor John Houseman gives a very dignified and charming performance that adds some real energy, though the eventual plot twist that comes from this character doesn't make a great deal of sense as you think about it. Fortunately, there is some compensation for these weak characters from the character of Bridger. As I mentioned before, he does execute his investigation in a believable way, and making it better is that most of his plans seem pretty smart as well. Actor Richard Chamberlain is careful to not make his character's intelligence and determination come across in a braggart fashion. He's definitely not phoning it in (ha!) Instead, he gives his character a very appealing everyman feeling, and as a result this character was able to carry me through many of the rough patches in Bells. Was it enough to save the movie? To be honest, I'm quite on the fence about this cinematic effort. There was definitely a lot I liked, but there was just as much material that seemed to be holding it back from its full potential. Readers who see some features of this movie I've described appealing may find the whole experience okay on a slow day, but on the other hand I will sort of understand why some viewers may want to hang up before the end credits roll.

(Posted March 29, 2025)