It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

After moving into her husbands' house, a stepmother begins to get increasingly concerned about his sons' growing psychotic behavior that becomes eerily similar to the antics that killed his first wife and begins to fear for her safety around him.This was quite the disturbing if flawed effort overall. What really tends to work here for this one is the fact that there's a rather sleazy tone present in a retelling of a rather familiar story. With the film exploring the familiar set-up involving her arrival alongside his return home that gradually leads to the discovery of even darker activities just within the surface, that allows this one to adapt plenty of sleazy thrills into this one that makes for a rather appropriate fit into the times. The general scenes of her nude, either walking through the house after showering or lounging about in barely-there swimsuits are fine enough, but to include the scenes of her being actively fondled while on the phone or the stand-out scene of being forced to strip completely naked in front of him all gives it a rather depraved tone and feel which is quite apparently a sign of the times. Given that this is all tied together with the more traditional elements found in the adaptation of the original story, it goes along quite nicely with the stories of his deviant behavior at the school, the mysteriously quiet nature of his general appearance and the growing paranoia experienced by the thought that he's targeting her for the same reasons to really build up the thriller aspects of the storyline. That also leaves the film into quite a rousing final half which comes with some rather fun times here as she finally learns the truth indulging in a series of fantasies about what to do to him and finally leading into the final revelation that makes for quite a nice finale. Even with these positives, there are a few flaws to be found here. The biggest issue here is the film's rather dramatic sense of pacing, tending to feature more in the way of straightforward drama rather than any kind of horrific activity. It's all basically the idea that he's done these terrible things yet never follows through or shows any of it happening, forcing this one to go nearly it's entire running time before any kind of action actually occurs as nearly all the scenes of her running around trying to find out the truth indeed build up the mystery without anything actually happening causing this one to be incredibly boring at times. Nowhere else is this most evident than in the encounter with the psychiatrist which is so bland and dull despite all the revelations coming out that there's nothing all that enjoyable about it that comes to pass from it. The other main flaw here is the fact that this one is so obviously based on the famous adaptation of the main story that it feels way too predictable throughout here, going from familiar set-up to familiar set-up without any deviation which makes for a rather routine affair here. This is due mainly to the idea that she's being made out to be crazy and nothing she says is the truth, which is quite the familiar storyline here and this one running so close to that storyline. These here are what really hold this one back.Rated Unrated/R: Full Nudity, Language, Mild Violence and sexual situations including erotic teasing of a minor.

Night Hair Child (a.k.a What The Peeper Saw) is a pretty depraved thriller that largely embarrasses its well-known cast. It is quite uncomfortable to watch a 12-year old lad engaging in a game of sexual cat-and-mouse with a 22-year old woman, but the film might have just about got away with it if a subtler approach had been adopted. When we have such scenes as the woman performing a strip to tease information out of the boy, or climbing into bed with him whilst naked in a bizarre dream sequence, the film goes beyond the boundaries of good taste. Things that could have been effective if implied suddenly become explicit… and the potential for a dark psychological thriller is replaced by an emphasis on exploitation and sleaze.After the death of his mother in a bath accident, Marcus (Mark Lester) goes away to boarding school while his father Paul (Hardy Kruger) buys a villa in a remote region of Spain to escape the memory of his loss. A couple of years later, 41-year old Paul has remarried to a 22-year old woman named Elise (Britt Ekland). Marcus, now 12, arrives at the villa unexpectedly while his father is away, claiming that his school has been shut down due to a chicken pox outbreak. It is the first time Elise and the boy have met. It soon strikes her that young Marcus is quite a disturbed boy – and her fears grow when she learns that he has actually been expelled from school after torturing then killing a cat. Paul cannot seem to accept that there is anything wrong with his son, but Elise is sure of it. Things get even creepier when young Marcus starts to make sexual advances towards her and, in his ultimate mind game, confesses to her that he actually murdered his real mother two years earlier. Elise is trapped in a vortex of lies, mind games and sexual threat, and her sanity is pushed to the brink… It would take some mighty fine performances to make these characters work and none of the three leads manage it. Kruger doesn't react believably to anything that happens; Ekland can't shrug her sex symbol image to bring conviction to the role; and Lester is mostly wooden when he should in fact be chilling us to the bone. It is left to a pair of guest stars – Harry Andrews as the school headmaster and Lilli Palmer as a callous psychologist – to deliver the film's only memorable performances, but their roles are so peripheral to the main story that they can't rescue the film. The plot is rather intriguing – there's always something morbidly fascinating about child villains in the movies – but the handling fails to do it justice. On the whole, Night Hair Child is a let-down, a film that has the potential to be chilling but wastes it, instead emerging as a sleazy melodrama with too much focus on sensationalism at the expense of actual psychological thrills.

I'd always been intrigued by this controversial film, given its cast and subject matter; being an international production between Spain, Great British and Italy, it was released under various titles – DIABOLICA MALICIA in Spain, LA TUA PRESENZA NUDA in Italy and several more in English-speaking countries, but perhaps most popularly as the obscure NIGHT HAIR CHILD (which is how I knew it) and the lurid WHAT THE PEEPER SAW; the print I watched, then, omitted the middle word from the former and left it at that! Anyway, the film is notorious for turning Mark Lester, the cute protagonist from the musical OLIVER! (1968), into a true nightmare of a child: liar, sadist, voyeur, lecher, murderer! As I said earlier, he's surrounded by other notables: Britt Ekland (at the height of her beauty) is his bewildered stepmom; Hardy Kruger plays the boy's clueless and over-protective father; and, also appearing in bit parts, are Harry Andrews as the headmaster of Lester's school (who's forced to expel him due to gross misconduct) and Lilli Palmer as a psychiatrist (intending to analyze the boy, she ends up checking in Ekland for treatment!).The film is undeniably sleazy, as we get to see Ekland stripping in front of Lester (at his behest, but to which she acquiesces in order to get at the truth of his mother's mysterious demise!) and even getting into bed with him stark naked (though this is presented as a mere hallucination on her part, witnessed by a cackling Kruger!); however, it's lifted out of the exploitation rut by all-round credible performances and a typically nice score by Stelvio Cipriani. The scene, then, in which Lester imagines his mother's corpse (whom he has callously killed in the film's very opening scene) in the pool is effectively macabre; the finale, too, is worth waiting for: the boy almost coerces Ekland (no sooner has she been released from the asylum) into murdering Kruger and becoming his lover since he tells her she's closer to his own age (Lester being 12 and Ekland 22, while Kruger's 42!); she gives him the impression of agreeing with this latest scheme of his but, realizing the kid will never change, Ekland immediately provides herself with the opportunity to get rid of Lester once and for all… Incidentally, co-director Bianchi would go on to make an even more explicit 'monster child' effort on his home turf with MALABIMBA – THE MALICIOUS WHORE (1979); as for Britisher Kelly, his only other film was the passable Tigon production THE BEAST IN THE CELLAR (1970). By the way, I have two more of Lester's vintage films to check out – MELODY (1971) and another Italian-made "Grindhouse" flick, REDNECK (1973); while I'm at it, I should try to get my hands on EYEWITNESS (1970), the well-regarded Hitchcockian thriller he starred in that was entirely filmed in Malta.

Seeing that this flick was about a pervert kid I almost instinctively picked it up. Even though I was intrigued about the story-line, the expectations of this flick was pretty low. I was pretty much just hoping for a couple scenes of nudity, ya know, some bosoms. Not only did I get some bosoms, I also was treated with a decent lil flick.The story's main focus is on a lady named Elease who's now the wife of a very wealthy man named Paul. Somewhat recently Paul's previous wife, Sara, accidentally died in a bathtub mishap. Paul and Sara had one child together, and that is Marcus, the original problem child. ;) Marcus, Paul and Elease are trying to begin a new life together, but not all is going so smoothly and things begin heading down the wrong path.The Night Child aka What the Peeper Saw was definitely a neat little flick, that surprised me on a few accounts. With only three main characters really, and what seems to be moderate acting abilities in all, the film still managed to keep the viewer (me) interested in what the next scene would bring. Elease and Marcus lead the show. With Elease's beautiful face and ability to keep the viewer (me) waiting for more nudity, she did a fine job with her respective role. But the kid who played Marcus did a very good job as the weirdo, neurotic lead. His mature, intellectual approach really was well-done and pretty damn entertaining. Even though he felt robotic at times, it seemed to add to his weirdass vibe.With a story that involves a bizarre little kid, and where you're second guessing his motives and his behavior, and a lead actress who is gorgeous, you've got the makings of a very good film. The pacing does have it's problems and some scenes do go on for a tad too long, but overall The Night Child was a nice surprise.