Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

newslogger ***Spoilers***I don't remember if I first saw this film in the theatre soon after it was released or subsequently on TV, but it definitely stuck in my memory, although for some reason I later forgot exactly how the killer managed to track down the address of the teenage prank-callers until a more recent viewing revealed the little-known fact that for a brief period in the mid-60s, California driver registrations were required to be encased in a holder attached to the steering-wheel shaft and thereby visible to the police in the event of an accident, theft, etc. Not sure exactly when this rule came to an end, but ostensibly it was due to potential or real abuse by busybodies and those intent on committing some type of crime against the vehicle owner. British Columbia likewise for a time offered these holders as likely did other jurisdictions. (Incidentally, John Ireland was born in Vancouver, B.C.)The "telephone directory" used by the kids in the film was a prop, of course, where only 5 numerical digits appeared on camera and were spoken by the kids--with the one being exception when Tess blurts out their 6-digit home number OL-4367 (OL in fact being a legitimate prefix back in the day in some telephone exchanges before it was later officially referred to by its digits-only prefix 65). As 7-digit telephone numbers were already in existence long before the release of the film, I can only assume that 6-digit numbers were still assigned to smaller towns and rural areas until they were inevitably eliminated.The (rather reckless) usage of potentially real phone numbers in films was before the now-standard but dead-ending "555" prefix became common in North American films and on television to prevent similar pranking or inadvertent mis-dialing.I presume that the two teenage girls Libby and Kit were deliberately scripted to be immature and--in the case of Libby--not knowing when to quit while she was ahead by actually driving to Marak's home, even getting all dolled-up beforehand! Honestly, who would actually do this?! Is it any wonder that thoughtless young girls end up in serious trouble or murdered, yet it continues to happen today through social media, stranger hookups despite the plethora of cautionary advice and very real tragedies.Some glaring goofs in the film were: (1) Considering the fact that in the beginning of the film Libby expressly tells Kit that her house being located so far from the city had reduced her social life to virtually nil, it then seems rather too convenient that she evidently manages to drive the presumed inconvenient distance to Marak's house in such a short time!(2) When the policeman shoots Marak in the back through the car's rear window, it can be clearly seen in a following camera shot that the angle of the bullet could very easily have hit Libby herself since she too was directly in the line of fire!Despite its flaws, this was another of William Castle's off-beat brand of pure escapism.

PrometheusTree64 Clearly, William Castle was no great director, certainly no Hitchcock, but this silly little gem of a B-movie works better than most Castle movies because the camera man, Joe Biroc, gives the picture a macabre dignity mostly lacking in Castle's other work as a director... (Just imagine if Castle's first movie with Joan Crawford, STRAIT-JACKET, a film with obvious potential, had been photographed by Biroc and all its sloppy, slipshod flaws were obscured -- it would have wound up the masterpiece Castle had hoped it would be, instead of a tacky cult curio). I SAW WHAT YOU DID presents a cozily idyllic, B&W, semi-rural, claustrophobic alternative reality at midnight, what with the split-level house on a hill in the middle of a really cool farm, and Crawford and John Ireland competing in the Who's Creepiest sweepstakes... and William Castle even uses a very effective fog in the latter scenes which makes me wonder why none of the other grand dame guignol pictures ever did that, not even HUSH... HUSH, SWEET CHARLOTTE (which Biroc also shot). So ISWYD works on atmosphere and good-naturedness.

Michael_Elliott I Saw What You Did (1965) *** (out of 4)Libby (Andi Garrett), Kit (Sara Lane) and Libby's younger sister Tess (Sharyl Locke) are home alone when they decide to have some fun by prank calling people. They start telling people "I saw what you did and I know who you are" but unfortunately for them they say this to Steve Marak (John Ireland) who has just murdered his wife.William Castle's I SAW WHAT YOU DID is an extremely entertaining and satisfying thriller that manages to be the director's best film next to HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL. The film has such a simple set-up and the director manages to do so much with it that it's a real shame the movie has never gotten the credit it deserves. This here is certainly much better than the other psychological thrillers that he was making during this period and he didn't have to resort to any sort of gimmick.What works so well here is the fact that the story is simple. I'm sure most people watching the movie has done something childish and stupid like the teens did here and of course sometimes you do it to the wrong person. The idea of saying something innocent as a prank to someone who has actually killed their wife just makes for a person story and it really gets hammered home thanks to Castle's direction. There are a couple terrific sequences here including the murder of the wife, which takes place in the shower and is rather violent. The other great moment happens at the very end when the two sisters are being chased around the house by the killer. There's some real tension in this sequence and it's certainly the highlight of the director's career.Another thing that works perfectly here are the performances. Both Garrett and Lane are wonderful in their roles and I thought both of them were very believable playing the naive teens. You've also got strong supporting performances by Leif Erickson and John Archer. There's also Ireland who turns in a wonderful and sinister performance as the man who just snaps and then has to resort to more murder to cover up his crimes. Ireland really nailed the part and sold it so well that you could believe he was this creep. Joan Crawford got top-billing but she's really not in much of the film. It's still fun to see her however and she's still quite good.I SAW WHAT YOU DID certainly deserves to be much better known than it is. Of all the film Castle did this one here contains his greatest director and proves that he could build up suspense and tension if he needed to.

LobotomousMonk I Saw What You Did opens with an eye-hole 'peep' matte shot (keyhole effect in full play) which also links the two main characters (teenage girls) as they get into a phone conversation preparing for a sleepover. This opening shot is both specular and cleverly ironic, which would bode well for this Castle film. Another element playing in Castle's favor is the casting of Joan Crawford. Castle's direction is compellingly and compulsively off and with no perceivable explanation as the script is fresh enough and the characters are fun and dynamic. The shot-reverse-shot and tableau framing creates a sense of camp. There is a splattering of oblique framing aptly creating an unobtrusive camera, however other elements such as the heavy shadows of a uninspired noir lighting setup do not fir with the theme and therefore no stable mood is created and the pace of narrative progression suffers. There is good humor with the crank calling and the shower scene is dramatic and well choreographed. Castle is again ahead of his time (or of the A-picture studio system at least) as he plays around with a psychologically attractive theme that would be replayed in the genre through films such as When a Stranger Calls (1979) and of course Wes Craven's Scream. The film is psychological and carries a significant traditional young female voice in its thematic. There is an idea purveyed that a young woman can take care of herself and stay safe just by talking her way through potential trouble. Castle proved long ago that he has a touch for evoking self-reflexivity within the film text and with the spectator. A good use of a mirror in this film underscores that point. There is an incredibly provocative shot constructed with intuition and style where the child and killer are framed in deep staging (so why the cheesy jewelbox cover). My primary complaint about this film is that Crawford's character needed more involvement in the script and more screen time. . This is a fun film worth watching, but many oversights keep it from being a great film.