Peeping Tom

This film was universally reviled on its release as providing cheap thrills. Clearly, the reviewers misunderstood its depth and intelligence. Many user reviews here appear to consider this film dated. Again, they clearly misunderstand it. The film is in no way dated. Sure, it portrays England of the very late 1950s, on the cusp of the cultural revolution. And many contemporary viewers may have had their senses deadened by over-exposure to gratuitousness. But in reality the subject matter does - has to - remain shocking: sadistic killing and the voyeuristic filming and viewing of what would now be called snuff movies. The film's success is not only its troublingly convincing portrayal of that, but also the ambivalence that the viewer feels towards the protagonist, Mark Lewis. Indeed, one finds oneself wishing that he will find redemption - most likely through his relationship with Helen - despite the fact that the film opens with his first sadistic murder. This ambivalence is inspired by a perfect script, a stunning piece of method acting by the unexpectedly but brilliantly cast Karlheinz Bohm (who said that no director had ever understood him as well, and that he once became so close to the character that he passed out!) and Powell's ability to make the viewer recognise a least a small part of themselves in the perversion. This is some of the best directing you will ever see, Powell clearly delighting in his portrayal of film making and viewing. Haneke's Funny Games is base in comparison in the way the film manages to involve the viewer and force them to share a part of the guilt. Some of the brilliant pieces of work include (i) the pre-titles viewing of the first murder, watching a man watching a film we've just watched in real life, but as a film, (ii) the warped film of a murder on Mark's back as he stands against the projection screen, contemplating the murder of Helen's blind mother, (iii) Mark having promised never to film Helen because he 'loses everything he films' the disturbing but almost heart breaking way he rubs the lens across his lips after she kisses him for the first time, probably the only human affection he's had since the death of his mother. As a story, too, this is brilliant. Background is sparse but expertly portrayed (the film his father made of him as a child), sufficient not only for characterisation to be convincing but also to allow enough ambiguity to think about for long afterwards. Perhaps Mark's fear was so removed that he must seek the ultimate in fear? Or fear is the only method towards affection? The plot itself if perfectly judged: will he be caught? How? Will he kill again? What will happen to Helen? Her mother? And the ending, too, doesn't mess around and succeeds in being simply a great ending to a story but also a combination of the imagery and themes portrayed throughout the film.

Utterly, terrifyingly, magnificent from the Master Michael Powell. Up there with 'Psycho' a truly disturbing masterpiece. Not for the feint-hearted.

Outstanding thriller with Hitchcock qualities. Without blood splattering all over the place, it is also excellent for the faint-hearted among you.

The original 60s set and equipment are a feast for the eye.

Dated as films go today but this one is still worth a look. i enjoyed watching it but not a second time round

This film must have been shocking and groundbreaking in its day, but it does now look very dated. That's not to say it's not enjoyable; it is well worth a watch, and the back story about the psychoanalyst father does give the central character some depth and his actions some explanation. The central performance does, however, little justice to this depth, and the supporting actors aren't much better. Some of the scenes seem to suggest that there was an attempt at the realism of the new wave of the time, but they lack that sincerity.