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
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 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.
A sixteen year old girl and her little sister who live in a secluded home a few miles away from anybody get the house to themselves for a night. The older girl invites her friend over for dinner and the three of them eventually resort to prank calling random people from the phone book to entertain themselves. Unfortunately for them they make the mistake of calling a man who's just committed murder and jokingly tell him, "I know what you did, and I know who you are." The man naturally assumes the voice on the line is serious and there is a witness out there who saw him disposing of his girlfriend's body. A variety of twists and intertwining characters eventually put the guilty man in the same room as our innocent kids.
The plot relies heavily on coincidence to stitch everything together and a major plot point hinges on an extremely stupid decision by our protagonists but in spite of it all, it still manages to build a lot of tension towards it's climax which although brief is handled very effectively. It also helps that this secluded home of there's is surrounded by forestry and continually deepening shadows as the night wares on with fog that's barely visible outside the moonlight, making for a very creepy and cool atmosphere. The acting is pretty good too, even our teenage heroes seem to exercise some decent chops all things considered. Good fun and good thrills.
¿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