Tuer n'est pas jouer

Yes, good old William Castle is on the loose again, with a low budget and a creepy plot...and Joan Crawford, whose salary probably used up most of Castle's available cash.

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.

and she knows who you are!

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.

William Castle made a career out of monster and ghost stories, so even though the synopsis on my TV said this was a departure about teenage girls involved with murder I still expected the same kind of B-movie action. In truth though it was actually a pretty decent thriller.

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.

Here's the plot: A teenage girl with her friend and younger sister(Andi Garett, Sara Lane, and Sharyl Locke) are left home alone one night by their parents, after the babysitter cancels. To amuse themselves, the decide to make prank phone calls(this was in 1965, long before caller ID or tracing existed) one phrase they use quite often to the people they call is "I saw what you did...and I know who you are." What they don't know is that one of the people they call, Steve Marek (John Ireland) takes them seriously, having just stabbed his wife to death!

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

What do you say when terror calls? Just the average "hello," or something more terrified?

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.