Just saw this, and I found it to be decent, though not at all brilliant. It's certainly an interesting psychological thriller that makes you think, but I found some of the supporting performances way too hammy, and also the piano score got very annoying very quick. Still, it's worth watching for the lead actors performance alone, and there are some creepy moments (especially towards the beginning). Overall, I rate it a 6/10.
Formally known as Coilector
I like it more than Psycho. It's one of the most twisted movies ever.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
It's very different
share[deleted]
And if anyone is comparing them for their production values, remember that Psycho cost about 10 times as much to make. Peeping Tom was made on a really low budget. That's why Michael Powell and his son Columba appear in it as Dr. Lewis and Mark as a boy and why Powell's wife Frankie, Columba's mother, appeared (as a dead body) as Mark's mother. There isn't always a deep psychological reason for these things, sometimes it was just because of the low budget
That's also why some of the clothes that Mark is wearing were known to be Powell's own clothes and why Mark's house was really just across the road from Powell's own house.
Steve
[deleted]
The problem with Psycho is its images and Norman Bates have become so much folk history that it's ceased to shock and borders on the ludicrous now. Peeping Tom is seriously disturbing because of the sexual nature of the voyeurism and the disturbance behind it that allows the individual to function in normal life, which Norman Bates did not. If you want to compare this with a Hitchcock I suggest Frenzy which is as disturbing and features a distinctive colour palette like Peeping Tom. They also both star Anna Massey.
my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ishshare
It is a good film, I grant you that. I do agree that it is not on the same level as Psycho though. I think Peeping Tom tends to be overrated, mainly because of the fuss over it killing off Michael Powell's career.
Psycho does have the problem of it being so absorbed into popular culture, but if you go back and watch the film - it is much more subtle than many people give it credit for. The film has a lot more complexities and nuisances than it gets credit for.
The film has a lot more complexities and nuisances than it gets credit for.Did you mean nuisances, or nuances? :)
Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...share
Whoops , that was a typo yes. Nuances - yes.
Yes, not many people seem to know of 'Peeping Tom' compared to 'Psycho'. 'Peeping Tom' tends to get overlooked and as I said be remembered for killing off Powell's career. It got a critical kicking in the UK and was pulled from release earlier. Later on it got reappraised some what. I do like it. But you have to say that 'Psycho' and 'Peeping Tom' are very different films. 'Peeping Tom' has the whole voyeurism theme, and cinema theme to it.
Interestingly I commented on how 'Peeping Tom' might have influenced Hitchcock for 'Frenzy'. The colour palette and so on. Plus, having Anna Massey in the film.
I think that Hitchcock and Michael Powell were friends. I think that Hitch suggested Kim Hunter for 'A Matter of Life and Death'. I also remember from the old Channel 4 documentary on 'Peeping Tom' that Alexander Walker(the old film critic)talked about Hitch and how he wasn't going to have the critics savage him for 'Psycho' (which ironically they did - but sort of backtracked when it was a commercial success)like they did with Powell for 'Peeping Tom'.
I think Peeping Tom tends to be overrated, mainly because of the fuss over it killing off Michael Powell's career.
Psycho does have the problem of it being so absorbed into popular culture, but if you go back and watch the film - it is much more subtle than many people give it credit for. The film has a lot more complexities and nuisances than it gets credit for.
Peeping Tom is one of my absolute favorite horror films! And anyone who claims that its too subtile to be part of the genre, shows lack of experience or maybe being just sucked into the typical "american way" of making horror films! Steve Crook, you and I share adoration of this film, right? I cant believe you want to "shrink" the film into saying nobody gets scared of it? Thousands of other horror films will suffer the same awful judgement by you, in that case! What is "Frankenstein", then? Nobody gets scared of it, right? But is it a study of surgical technics? No, the guy is taking corpses and sew different bodyparts together and infuse life into that poor being! That IS horrific, if you would witness it in real life! So is the twisted and perverted plot of Peeping Tom, despite its mild mannered direction/acting! Sorry I got angry! Horror films and classics of this genre like PT I keep like it was my religion, but I really dont want to be unfriendly, so enough of my opinion about that!
Anyways, I wanted to say what I think of Psycho! Hitchcock was a master, a perfectionist although a little stiff in his cinematic thinking, not allowing to improvise much away from his written script and visual frame-notes. I still consider, after that the main character has been killed in the shower, that the rest of the film loses its frenetic energy, tension and mystic..Its an uneven film, that suffers from the genial idea of getting her killed so soon.
Also, of course, repeated viewings of Psycho make us not scared anymore, as the clue in the end of whom Norman´s killer mother really are, are so important to the film. Peeping Tom doesnt suffer from any spoiled surprise ending, as the murderer is exhibited all from the start, AND creating some sympathy for him, I might say!
Believe it. I don't regard Peeping Tom as a horror film. The main reason why I think that is so often classified as such is that I think that the modern definitions of a horror film are far too wide (where anyone can define what makes a horror film).
I do think that Frankenstein is a horror film and story. People are horrified by the idea of what Frankenstein is doing and scared by the monster.
What horrifies anyone in Peeping Tom? You never see any murders. You know they happen, but you don't witness them. There's nothing in there that scares anyone, it didn't even scare anyone back in 1960. It makes the audience feel uncomfortable, especially when they realise that they are feeling sympathy and understanding of a seriously disturbed murderer. But does that make it a horror film?
Steve
as i just said! You dump most old horror films! And that is something you will understand the more you dive into the world of this genre! But I am an anarchist, so I let you be right anyways, because you have all the right to think what you want!
All best to you!
[deleted]
I gave it a 7. I liked it but I didn't love it. I'm with you also in the sense that it is not as good as Psycho. Loved the lurid colours and touches of dark humour in this.
"Hey! Ladies! That was fun!"
I wouldn't hesitate to call it brilliant work... for its time. But it's certainly a decent watch now, however.
Better to be king for a night than schmuck for a lifetime - Pupkin
Much has been made about Psycho and Peeping Tom both coming out in 1960, with Hitchcock making big box office and superstardom when Psycho hit, and Michael Powell's career coming to a near-halt with Peeping Tom.
But it is more complicated than that.
Yes, both films came out in 1960, and both films featured a sexual psychopath killer.
But we need to take Hitchcock at face value about how Psycho works: "To me," Hitch said, "the processes through which we take the audience in Psycho are like riding a roller coaster or going through the Haunted House at the fair. Psycho is a fun film to me."
A fun film indeed. Whereas Peeping Tom evidently only played art houses, and didn't even reach the US until 1962, Psycho had audiences lined up around the block, eager to go in to the theater(sometimes more than one time) to "ride the roller coaster." 1960 audiences for Psycho were full-house and filled with people screaming during the two murders and the final 20 minutes through the climax.
Entirely different experiences. And Peeping Tom elected NOT to show any of its murders, just the build-up to them.
As noted elsewhere on this board, Psycho is not so relevant to Peeping Tom as is the Hitchcock film of 12 years later, Frenzy, which shared an actor (Anna Massey) with Peeping Tom, a London locale and British production, and a none of the "boo!" aspects of Psycho.
All three films -- Psycho, Peeping Tom, Frenzy -- are great in their stylized treatment of psychopaths and the murders they commit. The stories compare and contrast to each other.
And this: Peeping Tom and Frenzy are about psychos who kill women exclusively. So they feel just a little...sexist. The killer in Psycho kills a woman AND A man (though the woman is killed for sexual reasons and the man because he knows too much), but it is more of an "equal opportunity" shocker, and thus a bit easier to watch.