Senteur
As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
Keira Brennan
The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.
Michelle Ridley
The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity
Michael_Elliott
Violated (1953) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Greenwich Village comes under attack by a psycho who is stalking women. Not only is he killing them but he's also scalping them. The lead investigator (Mitchell Kowall) teams up with a psychiatrist (Jason Niles) as they try to determine the killer who might just be a released sex offender.For 1953, VIOLATED is pretty hot stuff from start to finish. This is basically an exploitation film that mixes horror and film noir elements and the end result is fairly entertaining even if there are many flaws with the picture. If you're familiar with the 1980 slasher MANIAC you'll know that the lead character there scalped his victims. That film was heavily influenced by the 1966 film AROUSED. Well, I think it's safe to say that MANIAC also borrowed from this picture.The first thing you'll notice about this picture is that fact that it's working on a very small budget. I know noirs made a name for themselves by having small budgets but this here is a lot lower than you'd typically expect. What really sets the film apart isn't its story so much but the fact that it's willing to push the boundaries of good taste. After all, this here was seven years before PSYCHO and you've got a sex maniac, a psycho stalking women and a burlesque subplot where there are plenty of ladies not wearing too many clothes.Those exploitation elements is what keeps the film alive and moving throughout its short 67-minute running time. The performances are very hit and miss and the majority of them would be called amateurish to say the least. The lack of any real acting talent makes for a documentary like feel and the music score by Tony Mottola really adds a lot of sleaze. VIOLATED is a film that should probably be better known than it is.
Mbakkel2
"Violated" is a film about a homicidal photographer. Wait a minute, this description also fits to "Peeping Tom". Yes, there are many similarities - but also many dissimilarities - between those films.The similarities: Both perpetrators have a strenuous relationship with women. The crimes in both cases are caused by unpleasant childhood memories.Mark in "Peeping Tom" was used as a guinea pig for his father's psychological experiments on fear and the nervous system. Jan in "Violated" discovered that his mother's lover stroke her long hair, which triggered both his hatred of women and hair fetishism. He cuts off the hair of his victims after he killed them.The dissimilarities: "Peeping Tom" had the advantage of being made on a large budget with high-classed actors by one of Great Britain's most reputable directors, Michael Powell. The film was shot in Eastmancolor."Violated" was made on a shoestring budget by Walter Strate, his only feature film. Some of the actors were amateurs and they only appeared in this film. To be honest, most of the acting (also by the few professional actors) is quite unskillful. A reviewer on IMDb.com has, however, claimed that this adds more realism to the film. It was shot in gritty black and white on location in New York City.Mark in "Peeping Tom" incorporated his work as a photographer in the murders. Jan in "Violated" doesn't do that, although he kills a couple of his models.Mark is a handsome guy in his twenties, while Jan is an unattractive man in his forties.It is a matter of personal taste if you label this film as a noir or not. I think that Tony Mottolas moody guitar-playing expresses the loneliness and hardships of New York City's unfortunate residents, giving the film a touch of noir at least in the soundtrack.
MartinHafer
This is a super-cheap picture from Panther Productions. You'll notice how cheap it looks right away and has a definite homemade quality to it--with some choppy edits, lots of unknown actors, cheap music and amateurish lighting and camera-work. This does not mean it's necessarily a bad picture...but certainly one that lacks polish and looks pretty crappy. But, for an exploitation film from this era, this isn't at all unusual.The story begins with a pretty young lady being murdered and scalped! The film actually shows very, very little when it comes to this. Throughout the story, more ladies are being murdered the same way and apparently they have a connection to a photographer. Much of the film follows him and his infatuation with a stripper who is stringing him along--the rest of the film consists of the police trying to put the pieces to the puzzle together to solve the crimes.Overall, this is a film that looks cheap and terrible but STILL is interesting if you like exploitation flicks. To be this sort of person, you really have to look past the shabbiness of the production...and it is shabby. No real flashes of brilliance here otherwise...just a rather gritty and strange tale that seems way ahead of its time. Worth seeing...for the right sort of viewer. Being a lover of film noir would help....though this one is so poorly done I don't think most folks would consider it noir.
Alex da Silva
The story follows the police investigation of a serial killer with a hair fetish. Lt Mack (Mitchell Kowall) and Det. Dana (William Martel) enlist the help of a psychiatrist Dr Jason (Jason Niles) who we first see checking up with one of his patients, George (Fred Lambert), who has recently been released from jail. We also follow the story of photographer Jan (Wim Holland) and Susan Grant's (Vicki Carlson) attempts to make it as a model in New York. We are also introduced to the world of burlesque where Lili Damar (Lili Dawn) is queen of the scene. At the end, Dr Jason reveals the causes of what makes the killer tick, and the film finishes in a similar way to the beginning with an encounter between a man seemingly helping out a young woman who has dropped some papers.The film starts in quite an arty way - the soundtrack is very effective - as we see the first murder being committed. The music is good throughout the film. However, the acting is wooden and some of the dialogue is suspect, eg Susan's over-use of sentences that start "Gee....". The film is grainy and in poor quality over a certain section but the film has a novelty value. At times it feels like a silent film with a gripping soundtrack and this effect helps, in my opinion, to give this film a cult/art-house status.
