newslogger ***Spoilers***I don't remember if I first saw this film in the theatre soon after it was released or subsequently on TV, but it definitely stuck in my memory, although for some reason I later forgot exactly how the killer managed to track down the address of the teenage prank-callers until a more recent viewing revealed the little-known fact that for a brief period in the mid-60s, California driver registrations were required to be encased in a holder attached to the steering-wheel shaft and thereby visible to the police in the event of an accident, theft, etc. Not sure exactly when this rule came to an end, but ostensibly it was due to potential or real abuse by busybodies and those intent on committing some type of crime against the vehicle owner. British Columbia likewise for a time offered these holders as likely did other jurisdictions. (Incidentally, John Ireland was born in Vancouver, B.C.)The "telephone directory" used by the kids in the film was a prop, of course, where only 5 numerical digits appeared on camera and were spoken by the kids--with the one being exception when Tess blurts out their 6-digit home number OL-4367 (OL in fact being a legitimate prefix back in the day in some telephone exchanges before it was later officially referred to by its digits-only prefix 65). As 7-digit telephone numbers were already in existence long before the release of the film, I can only assume that 6-digit numbers were still assigned to smaller towns and rural areas until they were inevitably eliminated.The (rather reckless) usage of potentially real phone numbers in films was before the now-standard but dead-ending "555" prefix became common in North American films and on television to prevent similar pranking or inadvertent mis-dialing.I presume that the two teenage girls Libby and Kit were deliberately scripted to be immature and--in the case of Libby--not knowing when to quit while she was ahead by actually driving to Marak's home, even getting all dolled-up beforehand! Honestly, who would actually do this?! Is it any wonder that thoughtless young girls end up in serious trouble or murdered, yet it continues to happen today through social media, stranger hookups despite the plethora of cautionary advice and very real tragedies.Some glaring goofs in the film were: (1) Considering the fact that in the beginning of the film Libby expressly tells Kit that her house being located so far from the city had reduced her social life to virtually nil, it then seems rather too convenient that she evidently manages to drive the presumed inconvenient distance to Marak's house in such a short time!(2) When the policeman shoots Marak in the back through the car's rear window, it can be clearly seen in a following camera shot that the angle of the bullet could very easily have hit Libby herself since she too was directly in the line of fire!Despite its flaws, this was another of William Castle's off-beat brand of pure escapism.

Kingkitsch By the time 1965 rolled around, William Castle was pretty much out of ideas and gimmicks. "I Saw What You Did" was nearly Castle's last movie and it shows. The only two gimmicks left to the old carny was the warning on the poster for this snoozer: "This picture is about UXORCIDE!!". This is an obscure term for the murder of one's wife. Castle was out of ideas by now, no skeletons on a wire, no punishment poll, no ghost viewers. Only a forgotten term for murder...and Joan Crawford.ISWYD is a movie trapped in it's own time bubble, a look at the hijinks of teenage girls left alone with a telephone for fun and games. Once, telephones only made calls in or out, nothing more. Phone pranks have pretty much gone the way of high-button shoes and horse-drawn carriages. This look back at girls in 1965 is sweet, as well as irritating. Home-alone teens Libby and Kit amuse themselves by making dozens of stupid prank calls, along with prepubescent Tess, Libby's beyond annoying little sister. Using the tag line "I saw what you did and I know who you are" finally hits the jackpot when the two gals inadvertently reach a man who's just murdered his wife. Serious tomfoolery continues until the murderer reaches the girls (don't ask how, it's ludicrous) and lessons are learned.ISWYD is obviously dated and claustrophobic, being filmed entirely on sound stages at Universal. It has the cheap look and feel of a bad TV sitcom. The "outdoor" sets are painfully fake, and one wonders when Mr. Ed or Herman Munster will pop out of the canned fog. There's also a misplaced super perky soundtrack by the heinous Van Alexander who specialized in terrible TV themes and phony "rock and roll". Don't expect tension when bad transistor radio beach party music underscores the action.Which now leads us to the two very sad things about this moldy oldie: the murder of the wife (UXORCIDE!!!, remember?) and Joan Crawford. William Castle was the first to blatantly copy Psycho (1960) with his cross-dressing maniac in Homicidal (1961). ISWYD again wanders onto Hitchcock's lawn with the second "shower murder" of the 60s. This time, however, Castle stages the murder in reverse, where the victim is pulled into the shower and stabbed to death. Castle was really stretching things here. Now, Joan Crawford. Over 60 by this time, she was obviously finishing her contract work with Castle after the campy "Strait-Jacket". Here, Joan is swamped by an enormous hairdo, all swoops and curls embellishing a beehive of gargantuan proportion. Joan is playing an extremely horny neighbor, who is having an affair with the shower murderer, played by John Ireland. Joan isn't in the movie for long, which is good. She appears to be drunk and unable to cope with the gigantic hairdo or the huge tacky necklace that's strangling her. Watching Joan purr and slink around Ireland is about as sexy as watching your grandma get her groove on. We are happy when Joan is killed and her hair deflates. Ireland just looks coarse, nervous, and wondering where his check is. ISWYD is frozen in cheap movie studio set Hell, and isn't worth revisiting unless you want your pleasant memory of this potboiler ruined. The available DVD is pretty pricey for a bare bones presentation if you seek it out. The only thing that could have saved this would have been Mr.Ed rescuing the two silly girls from John Ireland. Ring ring! Wilbur,it's for you!

MARIO GAUCI In my earlier review of William Castle's HOMICIDAL (1961), I had stated that not only was that film obviously patterned on Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO (1960) but also that it looked forward to the "Grand Guignol" cycle that followed in the wake of the critical and box-office success of Robert Aldrich's WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) which had obviously co-starred Joan Crawford. Well, the film under review (which, incidentally, also features Crawford) is not only the third of four successive 'official' Castle efforts in that vein – including the bona- fide superior Crawford star vehicle STRAIT-JACKET (1964) – but also subverts two of PSYCHO's most infamous elements: the nominal star of the film here shows up more than half-way through its running-time but still gets bumped off well before the end; and while there is a (very effective, I might add) shower murder sequence here too, it is the killer who is naked under the faucet and is surprised by his aggressive victim, his departing wife!! Despite all these derivations and influences, I SAW WHAT YOU DID itself got remade for TV in 1988, not to mention inspired the "slasher" mini-franchise I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER more than 30 years later…Unfortunately, for all the atmospherically fog-laden black-and-white lighting and decent star names in the cast list (which, curiously, also includes male actor John Crawford as a providential highway patrolman!), the prototype does not perhaps hold up as well as expected in retrospect. Indeed, despite all three being billed ahead of the title, only psychopathic villain John Ireland gets a meaty role and a considerable amount of screen time; on the other hand, as already mentioned above, Crawford's unflattering part of Ireland's overzealous, overcoiffeured and ultimately blackmailing neighbour is only a star cameo (and her last appearance in a Hollywood feature film to boot!), while Leif Erickson's businessman father is just an unconvincing excuse to get the parents away from home for the night so that the trio of girl protagonists can indulge in the titular prank and resultant danger! Even that joke is played out for far more than it is worth and, like the cutaways to the elders' bland dinner engagement, gets to feel repetitive before long. Thankfully, the actresses chosen to fill in the shoes of the menaced pranksters are an engaging lot…even if Castle's reprise of the upbeat opening music cue (heard over the credits cleverly displayed through opening and shutting eyes!) for the ending was perhaps a bit misjudged seeing how the two sisters had just been threatened by a knife-wielding serial killer! Incidentally, for the typically ingenious ad campaign for the film, Castle proudly proclaimed to cinema patrons that the film they were about to watch involved "uxoricide" and had selected seats strapped with belts intent on keeping viewers from leaping out of them in shock!

Toronto85 Things get dicey for two teenage girls after they play what was supposed to be a harmless prank in 'I Saw What You Did'. Kit and Libby are spending the night babysitting Libby's younger sister Tess at their deserted mansion on a farm. The three of them decide to play prank phone calls on random people. It's all fun at first, until they decide to call Steve Marak and say the line "I saw what you did, and I know who you are!". What they don't know is that Steve just murdered his wife! So of course when Steve hears this over the phone, he suspects that the caller is onto him. This begins a fun game of cat and mouse in which Steve must deal with his nagging lover Amy (Joan Crawford), and get to the mysterious caller in order to shut her up... not knowing the caller is simply a teenage girl playing a game. I really love this film, one of my favourite's by William Castle. It runs at a bit of a slower pace than my all time favourite Castle movie (Strait Jacket), but has enough going for it to keep my attention. I'd say a con to this was that Joan Crawford was not utilized enough, but her character Amy was really secondary to the movie - and it worked. Amy was a supporting character, and although Crawford put in a good performance, 'I Saw What You Did' is more about the teenagers and the psychotic murderer out to keep them quiet.'I Saw What you Did' was likely the first horror movie to introduce the "helpless babysitter versus killer" storyline, which of course 'Halloween' used brilliantly in '78. The overall acting was good, especially from the main characters Libby, Kit and little Tess! You feel for all three of them and worry for their safety against Steve. Only con to it is that the ending felt a bit rushed. I highly recommend this one if you can find it, it's pretty hard to get on DVD or even VHS.8/10