CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
5.7/10
2 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
La segunda esposa de un autor adinerado comienza a sospechar que su hijastro de 12 años pudo haber asesinado a su madre, quien misteriosamente murió en un accidente en la bañera.La segunda esposa de un autor adinerado comienza a sospechar que su hijastro de 12 años pudo haber asesinado a su madre, quien misteriosamente murió en un accidente en la bañera.La segunda esposa de un autor adinerado comienza a sospechar que su hijastro de 12 años pudo haber asesinado a su madre, quien misteriosamente murió en un accidente en la bañera.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Conchita Montes
- Sophie
- (as Conchita Montez)
Colette Jack
- Sarah
- (as Collette Jack)
Ricardo Palacios
- Party Guest
- (sin créditos)
Opiniones destacadas
Its a well directed movie and needless to say it must have been a tight rope-walking to handle the taboo subject which must been akin to playing with fireball given the fact that movie debuted on screens way back in 1972. The movie seems more of psychological thriller as it involves quite a bit of mind-games.
Mark Lester as Marcus does a wonderful job. His character seems more like Damien from The Omen and gets to mouth intelligent lines. He looked on higher side for being portrayed aged twelve.
Britt Ekland gets the meaty bit of the role. Portrays the dilemma of the character quite well. Though the character of Elise starts off as a compassionate mother but as the movie progresses it evolves to be victim of Marcus and then leading to inquisitive wife attempting to unearth the truth.
Hardy Kruger seemed to have underplayed the of role of Paul as torn between the two ends. Otherwise his character had a variety of dimensions to it and certainly could have elevated the grey shades of it.
Narrative begins to build up as the movie progresses. Interesting parts are moves Marcus and Elise to play on the chess board attempting to out-beat each other. The part where Elise begins to get clues about the death is interestingly directed (the jigsaw picture), though might seem primitive my todays standards. The vivid imaginations of Elise comes across quite okay.
And yes, the end was well justified so don't miss the last 60-seconds of the movie.
Mark Lester as Marcus does a wonderful job. His character seems more like Damien from The Omen and gets to mouth intelligent lines. He looked on higher side for being portrayed aged twelve.
Britt Ekland gets the meaty bit of the role. Portrays the dilemma of the character quite well. Though the character of Elise starts off as a compassionate mother but as the movie progresses it evolves to be victim of Marcus and then leading to inquisitive wife attempting to unearth the truth.
Hardy Kruger seemed to have underplayed the of role of Paul as torn between the two ends. Otherwise his character had a variety of dimensions to it and certainly could have elevated the grey shades of it.
Narrative begins to build up as the movie progresses. Interesting parts are moves Marcus and Elise to play on the chess board attempting to out-beat each other. The part where Elise begins to get clues about the death is interestingly directed (the jigsaw picture), though might seem primitive my todays standards. The vivid imaginations of Elise comes across quite okay.
And yes, the end was well justified so don't miss the last 60-seconds of the movie.
I'd always been intrigued by this controversial film, given its cast and subject matter; being an international production between Spain, Great British and Italy, it was released under various titles DIABOLICA MALICIA in Spain, LA TUA PRESENZA NUDA in Italy and several more in English-speaking countries, but perhaps most popularly as the obscure NIGHT HAIR CHILD (which is how I knew it) and the lurid WHAT THE PEEPER SAW; the print I watched, then, omitted the middle word from the former and left it at that!
Anyway, the film is notorious for turning Mark Lester, the cute protagonist from the musical OLIVER! (1968), into a true nightmare of a child: liar, sadist, voyeur, lecher, murderer! As I said earlier, he's surrounded by other notables: Britt Ekland (at the height of her beauty) is his bewildered stepmom; Hardy Kruger plays the boy's clueless and over-protective father; and, also appearing in bit parts, are Harry Andrews as the headmaster of Lester's school (who's forced to expel him due to gross misconduct) and Lilli Palmer as a psychiatrist (intending to analyze the boy, she ends up checking in Ekland for treatment!).
The film is undeniably sleazy, as we get to see Ekland stripping in front of Lester (at his behest, but to which she acquiesces in order to get at the truth of his mother's mysterious demise!) and even getting into bed with him stark naked (though this is presented as a mere hallucination on her part, witnessed by a cackling Kruger!); however, it's lifted out of the exploitation rut by all-round credible performances and a typically nice score by Stelvio Cipriani. The scene, then, in which Lester imagines his mother's corpse (whom he has callously killed in the film's very opening scene) in the pool is effectively macabre; the finale, too, is worth waiting for: the boy almost coerces Ekland (no sooner has she been released from the asylum) into murdering Kruger and becoming his lover since he tells her she's closer to his own age (Lester being 12 and Ekland 22, while Kruger's 42!); she gives him the impression of agreeing with this latest scheme of his but, realizing the kid will never change, Ekland immediately provides herself with the opportunity to get rid of Lester once and for all
Incidentally, co-director Bianchi would go on to make an even more explicit 'monster child' effort on his home turf with MALABIMBA THE MALICIOUS WHORE (1979); as for Britisher Kelly, his only other film was the passable Tigon production THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR (1970). By the way, I have two more of Lester's vintage films to check out MELODY (1971) and another Italian-made "Grindhouse" flick, REDNECK (1973); while I'm at it, I should try to get my hands on EYEWITNESS (1970), the well-regarded Hitchcockian thriller he starred in that was entirely filmed in Malta.
Anyway, the film is notorious for turning Mark Lester, the cute protagonist from the musical OLIVER! (1968), into a true nightmare of a child: liar, sadist, voyeur, lecher, murderer! As I said earlier, he's surrounded by other notables: Britt Ekland (at the height of her beauty) is his bewildered stepmom; Hardy Kruger plays the boy's clueless and over-protective father; and, also appearing in bit parts, are Harry Andrews as the headmaster of Lester's school (who's forced to expel him due to gross misconduct) and Lilli Palmer as a psychiatrist (intending to analyze the boy, she ends up checking in Ekland for treatment!).
The film is undeniably sleazy, as we get to see Ekland stripping in front of Lester (at his behest, but to which she acquiesces in order to get at the truth of his mother's mysterious demise!) and even getting into bed with him stark naked (though this is presented as a mere hallucination on her part, witnessed by a cackling Kruger!); however, it's lifted out of the exploitation rut by all-round credible performances and a typically nice score by Stelvio Cipriani. The scene, then, in which Lester imagines his mother's corpse (whom he has callously killed in the film's very opening scene) in the pool is effectively macabre; the finale, too, is worth waiting for: the boy almost coerces Ekland (no sooner has she been released from the asylum) into murdering Kruger and becoming his lover since he tells her she's closer to his own age (Lester being 12 and Ekland 22, while Kruger's 42!); she gives him the impression of agreeing with this latest scheme of his but, realizing the kid will never change, Ekland immediately provides herself with the opportunity to get rid of Lester once and for all
Incidentally, co-director Bianchi would go on to make an even more explicit 'monster child' effort on his home turf with MALABIMBA THE MALICIOUS WHORE (1979); as for Britisher Kelly, his only other film was the passable Tigon production THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR (1970). By the way, I have two more of Lester's vintage films to check out MELODY (1971) and another Italian-made "Grindhouse" flick, REDNECK (1973); while I'm at it, I should try to get my hands on EYEWITNESS (1970), the well-regarded Hitchcockian thriller he starred in that was entirely filmed in Malta.
I first saw OLIVER! six years ago, and I knew that the angelic-looking young actor playing the title role had to be the greatest child actor ever, and I was absolutely right. I have never seen a more bright and talented young actor. Lester is truly amazing. Right after I saw the film, I started seeking out other Mark Lester titles. The first and best I came across is the 1971 chiller, NIGHT CHILD, in which Mark gives what may very well be the greatest performance ever given by a child actor. Lester plays Marcus, a disturbed young boy who may have murdered his mother, and he may have similar plans for his father's new wife. I won't say anything more about the plot, but I will say that Mark Lester's performance is magnificent. He proves that he is the most skilled and versatile actor ever. It's unfortunate that this film isn't more well-known, but Lester's strong performance makes it something really special. It isn't likely that you"ll find the film in your local video store, but if you ever get the opportunity to see it, don't miss out!
Night Hair Child has all the elements to be a disturbing and dark thriller; especially considering the sick and twisted plot line. However, despite a few interesting ideas; this film doesn't capitalise on them, and unfortunately it's only an average film that is nowhere near as disturbing as it could have been. The plot basically focuses on the idea of a 'problem child' causing problems between his parent and a new significant other. The problem child idea has been done many times throughout cinema; but a less common variant is a film like this, where sleaze take centre stage. However, such is the disappointment of Night Hair Child; not even the sleaze is all that prominent. The plot focuses on Elise; a beautiful young woman who has married older man Paul. Paul's wife apparently died in a strange bathtub incident and this has had a damning effect on her son Marcus, who unluckily for Elise, has returned home from school early and has took it upon himself to wreck their marriage by way of getting in between them with lies and bad behaviour.
The main problem with this film is definitely the acting. A plot like this needs strong performances from the leads and it just doesn't get them. Britt Ekland has been good in other films where a great performance is not needed; but she just doesn't have the talent for this role and despite looking nice, she doesn't deliver what is needed. Her opposite number is Mark Lester. I can completely understand the attraction of having the star of Oliver in a role as a twisted sex pervert; but unfortunately, he's a terrible actor that never conveys any emotion at all and simply does not convince in his role. He's also very irritating and every scene he features in is a struggle to get through. The plot is nowhere near as interesting as it could have been either; the exchanges between the central characters lack imagination, and only the scene where Britt Ekland strips for Mark Lester is really memorable; and it's not as memorable as a similar scene in Lucio Fulci's Don't Torture a Duckling starring Barbara Bouchet. Overall, it's a shame but I wouldn't really say that this film is even worth a look.
The main problem with this film is definitely the acting. A plot like this needs strong performances from the leads and it just doesn't get them. Britt Ekland has been good in other films where a great performance is not needed; but she just doesn't have the talent for this role and despite looking nice, she doesn't deliver what is needed. Her opposite number is Mark Lester. I can completely understand the attraction of having the star of Oliver in a role as a twisted sex pervert; but unfortunately, he's a terrible actor that never conveys any emotion at all and simply does not convince in his role. He's also very irritating and every scene he features in is a struggle to get through. The plot is nowhere near as interesting as it could have been either; the exchanges between the central characters lack imagination, and only the scene where Britt Ekland strips for Mark Lester is really memorable; and it's not as memorable as a similar scene in Lucio Fulci's Don't Torture a Duckling starring Barbara Bouchet. Overall, it's a shame but I wouldn't really say that this film is even worth a look.
"What the Peeper Saw" is much more of a psychological drama than a horror film, or even a thriller. It focuses heavily on the antagonistic relationship between Elise (Britt Ekland), the new wife of an older man, successful author Paul (Hardy Kruger), and her stepson Marcus (Mark Lester of "Oliver!" fame). They initially seem to get along all right, but Elise becomes increasingly frustrated by this enigmatic, aloof kid, who acts much older than his actual age. She comes to suspect that he had murdered his biological mother Sarah (Colette Giacobine), and now has similar designs on her.
As directed by James Kelley ("The Beast in the Cellar"), you can't ever expect a lot of tension in this film. That doesn't seem to be its primary concern. It DOES have a sexual charge about it, however. Hell, the uncut version opens with a scene of nudity. The evolving relationship between our heroine and bratty antagonist does play up this quality. (Still, it must be noted that you don't ever see the kid indulge in the act of peeping on screen.) The single most memorable sequence involves the two main characters exchanging clothes for information, as Elise strips in front of Marcus in order to get some truths out of him.
And this kid is one truly cagey character. One thing you can expect is that the scenario turns into one of "he said, she said", and Elise is understandably flustered that she can get almost nobody to believe her about this bad seed.
Ekland is no great shakes as a dramatic actress, but she just looks so damn fine that some viewers probably won't mind very much. (She DOES give the proceedings an earnest effort.) Kruger is fine as the dad, but the film belongs to young Lester, who's quite amusing throughout. Lilli Palmer and Harry Andrews are excellent in special guest appearances as a psychiatrist and school headmaster.
The out of nowhere violent ending is downright hilarious, even if it's probably not intended to be that way.
The Italian version is credited to Andrea Bianchi ("Strip Nude for Your Killer", "Burial Ground").
Six out of 10.
As directed by James Kelley ("The Beast in the Cellar"), you can't ever expect a lot of tension in this film. That doesn't seem to be its primary concern. It DOES have a sexual charge about it, however. Hell, the uncut version opens with a scene of nudity. The evolving relationship between our heroine and bratty antagonist does play up this quality. (Still, it must be noted that you don't ever see the kid indulge in the act of peeping on screen.) The single most memorable sequence involves the two main characters exchanging clothes for information, as Elise strips in front of Marcus in order to get some truths out of him.
And this kid is one truly cagey character. One thing you can expect is that the scenario turns into one of "he said, she said", and Elise is understandably flustered that she can get almost nobody to believe her about this bad seed.
Ekland is no great shakes as a dramatic actress, but she just looks so damn fine that some viewers probably won't mind very much. (She DOES give the proceedings an earnest effort.) Kruger is fine as the dad, but the film belongs to young Lester, who's quite amusing throughout. Lilli Palmer and Harry Andrews are excellent in special guest appearances as a psychiatrist and school headmaster.
The out of nowhere violent ending is downright hilarious, even if it's probably not intended to be that way.
The Italian version is credited to Andrea Bianchi ("Strip Nude for Your Killer", "Burial Ground").
Six out of 10.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe film received minor cuts for its initial UK cinema release. However in 1978 the introduction of the Protection of Children Act caused the BBFC to withdraw the film where it received extensive cuts to all scenes where Elise strips in front of Marcus, shots of Marcus caressing Elise's breasts, and the complete removal of the bed scene between Elise and Marcus.
- ErroresElyse says the peephole in the attic was covered with gauze, but when she looked through it , it was clear, no covering.
- Versiones alternativasThere are some very minor differences between the VHS and Blu-ray versions of the film. For example, when Elise strips in front of Marcus, there are significant last-minute jump-cuts in the Blu-ray version, while the VHS print runs normally. Also in the dream sequence when Elise strips and attempts to have sex with Marcus is presented differently in the copies. In the VHS print, the whole scene is in one take, ending with a smiling Paul watching over them. The Blu-ray version divides the whole scene into two parts, placing other small shots from the film in between. Also, the VHS uses the original title of the film "Night Child" instead of "What the Peeper Saw" in the Blu-ray. Both version have the same runtime of 95 minutes, however.
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- What the Peeper Saw
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 29 minutos
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta
Principales brechas de datos
What is the Canadian French language plot outline for Diabólica malicia (1972)?
Responda