Very well executed

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

One theory about why people collect things is that in a world where chaos constantly threatens, and where one has little control over fate, collecting is one area where control can be retained. "The Collector" is a story about a man who desperately wants to control one thing in particular – the woman he has become obsessed with.Although "The Collector" seemed pretty shocking in 1965, William Wyler said at the time that he intended to make a modern love story, but it's hardly that. Based on John Fowles' novel, the film may actually have been quite prescient, especially in light of the number of urban abductions and imprisonment of women that have occurred over the intervening decades. However the film's rather old-fashioned, near Gothic style, plus an over-the-top performance from Terence Stamp softened the nastiness of it all. But with that said, it's still pretty creepy.Terrence Stamp's character, Freddie Clegg, is a socially inept bank teller and butterfly collector who has won a fortune on the football pools. He comes across an isolated country home for sale. He is particularly interested in its large cellar, which he thinks might help him fulfil a fantasy that has become an even bigger interest than butterfly collecting. He is obsessed with a girl, Miranda Grey played by Samantha Eggar. With his newfound wealth he buys the country home then snatches Miranda off a street after chloroforming her. He keeps her prisoner in the cellar, and although he treats her more like a pampered houseguest, Freddie has complete power over her. He desperately wants her to fall in love with him, but as is the way with such obsessions, love and hate are closely linked. Miranda tries everything to extract herself from the situation even agreeing to stay for a month without struggle. Eventually she offers herself sexually. This enrages Freddie who has issues with intimacy – especially when Miranda is conscious. The changes in Freddie's feelings spell great danger for Miranda. The film follows the ending of the novel and it's a bleak one. Terrence Stamp's mannered performance is distracting. This included squeezing himself into a suit, which was at least a size too small, no doubt in an attempt to help capture Freddie Clegg's constrained personality. The twisted nature of the character is reinforced by Stamp's twisted posturing – just in case we missed the point. Samantha Eggar on the other hand, is perfect as Miranda Grey. She is the type of unattainable beauty who might easily attract the attention of a stunted personality such as Freddie Clegg – he knows he would never be able to associate with her on an intimate level under normal circumstances. Eggar's reactions are believable as her character undergoes various mood swings during her imprisonment. The audience identifies with her and she never loses their sympathy while Freddie never gains it.Maurice Jarre's score has been criticised as a hindrance in this film. His rich, melodic style certainly wasn't right for everything. The criticism is justified in this case as the music misdirects the mood of the film at crucial moments. Wyler was a meticulous craftsman who made many famous films, but the attention to detail that made many of his films great, made this one heavy instead. Although he coaxed a very good performance from the inexperienced Samantha Eggar, in my opinion, "The Collector" remains more of an oddity than a great movie.

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 filmwatchinfool@gmail.com

Terence Stamp is fabulous in the part of a brooding etymologist who kidnaps Samantha Eggar in this 1965 weird picture. Everyone knows that he has no intention whatsoever of releasing his true love. In fact, he has been watching her for quite a while. Along the way, Eggar tries to escape to no avail. There is no sex between the two and the piece becomes one of sheer boredom. It is almost laughable in certain scenes.In fact, Eggar developing pneumonia during all this is probably a welcomed relief.Is Stamp another Scarlett? Does he actually realize that Eggar was really never for him?

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.