Should have been shot in black & white. There’s something sleep-inducing, lifeless, and bleak about those colours. The soundtrack is unfortunately not very good, bordering on annoying. The camera work is where the film’s strength lies. Too much censoring. Overall some great scenes, a good share of creativity, a straightforward plot and honestly a little boring.
An endlessly fascinating film, because it is imbued with the audience's involvement in cinema's emotional manipulation, its joy, beauty, horror, sadism and masochism, an involvement at least as deep as that of filmmakers. This reflexive nature, of turning the gaze of participation back onto the audience, can only fully explain the outrage it occasioned.
Progredendo a ritroso, eliminando le forme della paura fino alla paura stessa: il corpo che vede e il corpo che è visto sono lo stesso. Ma tutto è contaminato da uno psicologismo strutturale, a cui in fondo è riducibile la scoperta della paura. Powell, di fronte alla paura, ha posto la domanda sbagliata: da dove, la paura? Avrebbe dovuto rinunciare all'interrogazione e lasciare vedere. (Radicalismo.)
Based on complex and un-complicated characters and set in between the realms of photography and cinema, Powell's work broke the cinematography practices upheld until that moment - with a major use of P.O.V. framing (including overlaying viewfinder frames) - while holding on cine-theatrical lights and acting. Shot and displayed in the same year that "Psycho" came out, gave another take on distorted minds in cinema.
Peeping Tom teases smuttiness or trashiness, but it ends up being extremely elegant. The later grisly scenes are accomplished with minimal gore, necessitated by the sensibility of the time. Funnily enough, it was still too much for the 1960 audiences, who found it horrifying. You can't please everyone.
One of the first and finest modern thrillers where we follow a serial killer's killing spree. It is dark, terrifying and disturbing. It's stage-like feel help the movie and distances us from the creepiness and still it feels very believable. Sadly, the movie killed Michael Powell's career.
Psycho is the natural comparison, but I kept thinking of Hitchcock's later film Frenzy (which I don't like). PT is ahead of its time yet maddeningly dated. Powell might not have directed Boehm to channel Peter Lorre, but I wish he'd have put a stop to it. Awful film score. No arguing with Powell's camera work though, which implicates us all as voyeurs. Art and exploitation are deliciously savage bedfellows. 3.5 stars
A serial killer movie before serial killers were “cool”. A great movie that portrays the turmoil of a young man, his perverse fantasies, and his struggles keeping his needs in check. Mark Lewis is a young photographer who moonlights as a pornography supplier for a local snuff shop. Mark has a dark side, however. Due to the torments of his childhood, Mark murders women and films their last expressions of fear.
Gorgeous lighting, gorgeous color, and makes full use of the camera s a symbol of the urge to look and be looked at. I can see why the British public had a real problem with this movie; specifically, the way it forces the audience to identify themselves with a voyeur, whose ultimate punishment comes at his own hand, for his own purposes. But consequences are consequences, and everything is properly framed. It's fine.