Well crafted from start to finish. The lighting, composition, and sound all work just as they should, especially fitting given the subject material. The use of music is especially interesting.
In 1960, we got Psycho, but also the less well-known Peeping Tom from a late-career Michael Powell (The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus), another proto-slasher with similar impulses lurking behind the meek killer's actions. Like Norman Bates, Mark Lewis likes to watch and is haunted by a cruel, dead parent. But Mark's morbid fascination (on which point I will remains a bit vague since the uncovering of his pathology is what drives the intrigues) is also that of that audience. We are exposed as complicit in the popcorn-munching interest in seeing women die on screen (die and/or disrobe), absolved by the knowledge that these are fictional lives. And yet, we did see them suffer and die. Academics call it catharsis. If we are Mark as voyeur, Powell himself is Mark as film-maker, producing these images for us as much as for him. For him? All the stuff with Mark on set, with the terrible director and just-as-terrible actress seems like the act of someone who's become bitter, if not cynical, about the system in which he must work, with just a dash of self-loathing. It all amounts to a an intriguing and meaningful little thriller with a lot of surprises in store for us along the way.
an interpretation of the real horror children can face
and it was a good film in the terms of stylistic devices. But it was no horror film.
I think its strength lies more in the unsettling effects it has later on when you reflect on it.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 14 of 14
Torgo
Oh hi Mark.senorroboto
Well crafted from start to finish. The lighting, composition, and sound all work just as they should, especially fitting given the subject material. The use of music is especially interesting.I also liked the nod to
akuma587
Michael Powell's finest. Still one of the best horror movies ever made.pramodc84
One of the bestSiskoid
In 1960, we got Psycho, but also the less well-known Peeping Tom from a late-career Michael Powell (The Red Shoes, Black Narcissus), another proto-slasher with similar impulses lurking behind the meek killer's actions. Like Norman Bates, Mark Lewis likes to watch and is haunted by a cruel, dead parent. But Mark's morbid fascination (on which point I will remains a bit vague since the uncovering of his pathology is what drives the intrigues) is also that of that audience. We are exposed as complicit in the popcorn-munching interest in seeing women die on screen (die and/or disrobe), absolved by the knowledge that these are fictional lives. And yet, we did see them suffer and die. Academics call it catharsis. If we are Mark as voyeur, Powell himself is Mark as film-maker, producing these images for us as much as for him. For him? All the stuff with Mark on set, with the terrible director and just-as-terrible actress seems like the act of someone who's become bitter, if not cynical, about the system in which he must work, with just a dash of self-loathing. It all amounts to a an intriguing and meaningful little thriller with a lot of surprises in store for us along the way.Typically Thomas
Quite good but very slow. With a 100 minute runtime hardly the longest movie but it feels very longLycas666
I don't really get the horror. It was moreI think its strength lies more in the unsettling effects it has later on when you reflect on it.
Rohit
Haunting!Darkness_prevails
Absolutely stunning.Darkness_prevails
A truly amazing film.-1flb2-
Extraordinary film!Nine99
No that horrifying.Skyscore
http://www.afisha.ru/movie/176050/review/146592/Dieguito
More a suspense than a horror film. Quite unrealistic the character..