2 chicas jóvenes pasan el rato gastando bromas telefónicas, llamando a números al azar y susurrando "Sé lo que has hecho". Una de sus víctimas resulta ser un asesino que acaba de matar a su ... Leer todo2 chicas jóvenes pasan el rato gastando bromas telefónicas, llamando a números al azar y susurrando "Sé lo que has hecho". Una de sus víctimas resulta ser un asesino que acaba de matar a su mujer y cree que las chicas han sido testigos2 chicas jóvenes pasan el rato gastando bromas telefónicas, llamando a números al azar y susurrando "Sé lo que has hecho". Una de sus víctimas resulta ser un asesino que acaba de matar a su mujer y cree que las chicas han sido testigos
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Kit Austin
- (as Sarah Lane)
- Jill Adams
- (sin créditos)
- Police Sgt. Harris
- (sin créditos)
- Telephone Operator
- (sin créditos)
- Tommy Kane
- (sin créditos)
- Tom Ward
- (sin créditos)
- Linda Carson
- (sin créditos)
- Gerald Nyes
- (sin créditos)
- John Adams
- (sin créditos)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I'm sorry to say Joan does seem a bit stewed. She acts like a marvelous actress on a binge caught unawares. Her part is miniscule, but she gives it her off-kilter all. John Ireland is here, 10 years after being stung by Joan in "Queen Bee," which everyone has already mentioned. That film was infinitely scarier than this one, with Joan stopping just short of eating babies. Ooh, she was a bad one. In this film she's a bad one of a different sort--bad as in "not good."
Kit and Libby are the two silly acting teenagers that decide prank phone calls are a lovely way to spend an evening. They have several routines, but I don't remember hearing, "Is your refrigerator running?" "Yes." "Then you better go catch it." I guess they decided against using the classics. They go from mocking people ("Is this John Hamburger?") to girlfriend-accidentally-calls-wife skits ("Is --insert name-- there? Oh, this is his wife?!?"). When their creativity runs out (after about two phone calls) they decide to use a planned line--"I saw what you did and I know you are." Well, William Castle asks, what if the person you called actually did something and he thinks you saw him? Interesting idea--presumably taken from the book on which this film is based. Turns out, they ring up John Ireland, who has just committed a felony, and he thinks he had witnesses. Libby is the one that falls for him, I think, and she just gets all hot and bothered. She decides that she has to see a man that has a sexy voice like that, why, he must be just divine. She really fell hard--I felt sorry for her. She said his voice was something like him running his fingers up and down her spine. What has this girl been reading? She gets so frustrated (Freud's type of frustrated, I imagine) that she goes over to his house just to peek in the window. She gets all dressed up to do this, does her hair and puts on makeup, and the other girl (Kit?) is understandably confused. Libby is stomping on the flowers when she meets Amy, the drunken, sex-crazed, incredibly angry and pathetic neighbor.
At this point, things pick up considerably. We've got the rantin' and ravin' of Joan, the stammering and completely terrified girl, and John "Sexy Voice" Ireland. All our characters have reported for duty, and the plot has emerged. Everything is ready to go. I think this is where the film reaches its own little pinnacle of greatness. Joan confronts John (didja know there was also a John Crawford back then?) with the a bunch of incorrect information, but it's just enough to get him riled. From this point on, everyone's in trouble and who can save them now?
All in all, a very enjoyable film, although I don't think it's too terribly frightening. (Joan's hair is scary, as I think someone else mentioned, but that's about it.) It's what one would expect from William Castle. Laughs in a Halloween costume.
You know you're in trouble from the first few scenes, with corny eyeball-shaped framing devices, then the intrusion of Van Alexander's completely out-of-place bouncy score, with its recurring principal theme of "Ninny nanny noo-noo." (Most of his credits are for 60s sitcoms, and it shows.) Then we're treated to exteriors of the Mannering house which are nothing more than Thomas Kincade- style paintings. (Virtually the whole film was shot on a sound stage, except for some rear projections.)
The plot itself is clichéd, but decently "executed." The casting is a problem, with Joan Crawford at age 60 trying to be the hypotenuse in a love triangle between 50-year-old John Ireland and some young bimbo (or we should say, ex-bimbo). Not much choice there. The two teenage girls are straight out of 60s sitcom land, and the younger sister joins the ranks of "most annoying child actors." There are some tense moments, including a ripoff of the shower scene from "Psycho" (except with a naked man instead of Janet Leigh).
And since we're already knee-deep in 60s sitcoms with the trite score and giggly teenaged actors, we're given an ending that would have been right in place on Dobie Gillis or the Patty Duke Show. Except with a dead body.
This film was really scary or at least very suspenseful, considering the time period. I was pretty much on the edge of my seat, waiting to see what would happen next. There are a few things that bring this film down, chief among them most inappropriate score I think I've ever heard. It was just corny. The acting in the initial scene between the two teen girls is bad, but gets better. This film comes highly recommended. 7/10
This is another strange William Castle concoction that features Joan Crawford in one of the B-horror movies she made near the end of her career, and yet the only way they could fit her into this story was to make her a kooky neighbor lady who wears tacky jewelry that looks like some sort of bizarre Aztec armor.
Everyone knows the plot, which involves two teenage girls who spend an evening making prank phone calls and, through the miracle of plot contrivance, stumble into the path of a psychotic man who has just committed murder.
I don't know if any of the other viewers felt the same way, but I really think the movie's violence is a bit shocking for its day. The first murder is an ironic ripoff of "Psycho", with the person in the shower committing the murder instead of being slashed, and I was surprised at how graphic it really is.
Also, I don't know whether this was really the filmmakers' intention or not, but they have captured the excitement of a teenage adventure and carried it effortlessly into a suspenseful conclusion. Ironically, the only thing in the movie that feels wrong is the subplot involving Crawford. It was obviously inserted to give the movie a star and to pad out the running time.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaJoan Crawford was approached for this film one month after she left Cálmate, dulce Carlota (1964) due to an "ailment" that prevented her from working (which is believed to have actually been sick of working with her arch enemy Bette Davis). Therefore, William Castle requested that Crawford's doctors sign a statement attesting that she was completely well before giving her the role.
- ErroresDuring the struggle in the shower with Marek and his wife, her hair goes back and forth from wet, dry, then back to wet again.
- Citas
[repeated line]
Libby Mannering, Kit Austin: I saw what you did, and I know who you are.
- Créditos curiososClosing credit (over picture of phone lines): "The End of the Line."
- ConexionesFeatured in Coming Soon (1982)
Selecciones populares
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- I Saw What You Did
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 22min(82 min)
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1