Didn't intend to watch this as this was just playing on the TV but a few minutes watching it emptily, the movie kinda grew on me. Who wouldn't get invited at watching at a creepy nerd stalking and holding hostage a sexy lady at his basement? Few characters, a single setting, not even a handful of dialogues but just struggles and shifts of emotions..yet, something in this movie holds the attention of the watcher. Was it Terrence Stamp's truthful portrayal of a desperate collector? Was it Samantha Eggar's innocent beauty trying to fight for her liberty? Or is it the suspense of not knowing whether they end up with each other or end up killing the other? Its the curiosity and the excitement. I didn't even remember I was watching a movie 2 decades older than me. Definitely a must-watch.

Watch this if.... you are a fan of psychological thrillers. Although a bit dated, this is still a very fine film in this genre.Acting/Casting: 8* - Let me say that I was blown away by the performance of Terence Stamp, who I thought portrayed a troubled and disturbed young man to a tee. Samantha Eggar is solid as well, but her performance is second rate to Stamp in this film.Directing/Cinematography/Technical: 8* - I thought the film was well directed by Wyler and had nice music and scenery to accompany the movie. There are some slow spots, but it keeps the audience engaged for the amount of dialogue that is involved.Plot/Characters: 6.5* - A man kidnaps a local art student in hopes of making her fall in love with him. I thought the storyline was intriguing and it came together really well while watching the film.Entertainment Value: 7* - I was pleasantly surprised by this film considering that it was made in 1965 and would recommend to anyone that is looking for a good psychological thriller.My Score: 8+8+6.5+7 = 29.5/4 = 7.375Email your thoughts to [email protected]

No – Not Really. Terence Stamp constantly has the same psycho-look on his face. He actually looks like Mr. Bean – which indicates how much my thoughts were drifting during this supposed thriller.Man kidnaps young lady – holds her hostage. He wants her to fall in love with him. When she does – or pretends too – he has too much psycho impotence to react accordingly. The young lady has innumerable escape opportunities which she does not take advantage of. There is so much credibility lost through-out this arduous 2 hour film that it boggles. The dialogue is monotonously repetitive – He says "Please love me and talk with me"– and she replies "I hate you and set me free why don't you babe – you just keep me hangin' on" (well not quite). At the end she dies blissfully and we hardly know why. Our psycho-killer can continue on his merry trajectory and make a sequel.

Intriguing premise— a really repressed guy adds a captive girl to his butterfly collection. The trouble is—as others point out—there's not enough movie material to fill the two hours running time. Besides, director Wyler likes to draw out scenes, which further slows the pace. I also agree that the dense psychological material is better suited to a stage production than a movie screen. Nevertheless, there are some interesting undercurrents to the story, morbid though it is.I want to pick up on a neglected psychological aspect of the movie. Consider, that is, how Freddie (Stamp) is first portrayed. As a person he appears more pitiable than wicked, even after abducting the gorgeous Miranda (Eggar). Instead of molesting her as we expect, he treats her with surprising respect. So, right away, we're wondering what's going on with this guy. As it turns out, the problem for Freddie is that he simply doesn't understand the concept of courtship. Instead, he's racked by a sense of inadequacy and inferiority that prevents him from winning Miranda's affection in a normal way. As a result, he approaches the object of his fascination in the only way he knows— by sticking chloroform in her mouth and sealing her in a figurative bottle.Now one aspect of sealing Miranda away is to remove her from the social context that makes Freddie feel inadequate. Note, for example, how negatively he refers to her " la-de-dah" friends and her higher social class. Note too how rigidly gentlemanly he is toward her. In his mind, he's made her into a queen deserving a kind of gallantry (he always dresses in suits; and, ironically, it's only after losing this "respect" that she's in real danger). So, if only he can make her love him—if only she would "try"—his adequacy would be proved, and just as importantly, he would qualify as her social equal despite his lowly background. However, unknown to him, he also has a blind spot that turns out to be a lethal one.That overriding defect is especially revealed in one scene. There, he wants to prove his intellectual qualities to Miranda by discussing the novel Catcher in the Rye. But despite an honest effort and some flailing, he fails to get beyond superficials, and for interesting reasons. He's simply unable to put himself in the lead character's place and see the world from the novelist's standpoint. In short, here as elsewhere, he lacks empathy for others. That is, he can't imagine anyone's feelings beyond his own-- not too surprising considering what he's done to Miranda (he tends to her material needs but nothing more). But once his intellectual effort fails, notice his fall-back position. He insists emotionally that people should really be satisfied with their lot in life, whatever it is. For the movie, this seems like Freddie's moment of self-discovery. To heck now with trying to impress others. He should be satisfied with what he is, and not care what others think. Thus, he finishes off the discussion by insisting that the book is bunk since the lead character (Holden) really has nothing to complain about in the first place. Freddie could just as well be speaking now for himself.Thus, having failed to empathize, he retreats back to an enclosed position of self- satisfaction. In short, he rejects his one stab at being a normal human—the effort to identify with others. At the same time, this sense of satisfaction means he no longer has to prove himself to his social betters. From now on, he will seek out women of his own social class. But more ominously, he can now feel content in being nothing more than the "collector" he has been. Thus, the collector settles into being merely one more objectified thing among the human and insect "objects" making up his self-enclosed world. And what formerly invited pity, now turns into a hunger for ever more human specimens as the chilling last scene shows. So what started out as a focused desire for one object, Miranda, turns into a stalker's generalized appetite for ever more quarry. Thus is a serial killer born.What's surprising is that we keep expecting the movie to be about sex, as attractive as Miranda is. But it's not. Instead it's about one very repressed individual and how his obsession with one person evolves into a serial pattern. I also suspect that author Fowles is getting in a dig at Britain's famously rigid class system since Freddie's initial sense of inadequacy feeds on class distinctions. However that may be, the film admirably refuses to sensationalize its morbid subject matter. And after years of sensationalized slasher films, that can be seen as no small accomplishment. Thus, despite its many well-reported drawbacks, the movie continues to fascinate.