Change Your Image
stluke1128
Reviews
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Gloating Place (1961)
i think it was good all the way..
I disagree with those who say the ending was not good. I think the episode was good all the way. The line up i think was good because.. well.. you just didn't know whether one of those (innocent as far as this 'crime') guys was going to be chosen by her.. even though she pretty much did choose the one guy.. but the officer pressed her on it.. (or something).. and he didn't end up being chosen.
I watched it a couple days ago. I'm thinking i'd seen it before. But i don't know if i watched the whole thing before. I'm sure i'd seen it before. Again.. i don't know if i'd watched the whole thing.
And after a couple of days.. it came into my mind.. that perhaps the person doing to killing of susan at the end was tom. I mean.. susan had killed his girlfriend.. the hot babe.. the queen.. right?
And did he not know that? Did he not realize that?
It's not certain that it was tom.. but it's an interesting thought.
We think of the characters as two dimensional.. and when what they are doing or thinking is not graphic in the production.. we think they have no part.
That's all wrong. Tom was a person. How do we know what he was thinking or planning.
I don't know if others thought of this. It doesn't appear on any of the other reviews.
If we are supposed to think it was tom at the end.. and the person was tall.. after all.. that is kind of a twist.. in a way. And hitchcock is known for these end twistings.
Sorry about focusing on one part so much.. but i just disagree with the thought that the end.. 'lacked creativity.'
sometimes.. some turn of action that seems to be easy to predict.. has a depth to it that those who are looking for things to criticize don't see.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Forty Detectives Later (1960)
over and over and over
Reviews are lame. How many stars should you make? There is no way to know. So i had to choose.. so i chose 8. It was arbitrary.
I just came here to say one thing.
The dude paid the dude to kill his wife. Then he was going to pay the other dude to kill the dude who he paid to kill his wife.
And?
Well.. so why wouldn't he have paid some other dude to kill the dude who killed the dude who he paid to kill his wife?
And why wouldn't he have paid some other dude to kill the dude who killed the dude who killed the dude who he paid to kill his wife?
And over and over and over.. ? ? ...
11required.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Diamond Necklace (1959)
my take
I have to say.. i was thoroughly impressed by this showing. I was impressed all the way through. It was like a mini movie in a way. Another reviewer here mentioned how during the time in the office.. the dad and the daughter didn't have to play at it.. but i disagree. He said that they were only playing for the audience at that time.. and that they didn't have to pretend in that private space.. as they had to pretend in the space of the jewelry shop.. which had other people around. (there were no other people around in the office). Again.. i disagree. They played it to the hilt. That would be the wisdom of the criminal mind.. to take nothing for granted.. to assume zero. And i mean.. literally zero. So they played it.. as though it was accurate.. in the doctor's office. And.. who knows? How do we know there might have been something that would have given them away had they not played it like this? Still.. i don't think this was a fault in the script at all. So.. i disagree with this gent.
Anyway.. i loved the play. Particularly did i love the part where the jeweler might have given it away.. when the owner came in and said.. 'you can't get away with this.' but he was cool. He was on edge.. as we.. with the inside viewpoint can see.. but he was cool. He was calm. And he could have given it away. It gives a person the model to be cool no matter what is happening.. because that person does not know what the other person knows or doesn't know. And it worked out for the lawbreaking thieving jeweler. Obviously he was in the wrong.. sinning.. but.. still.. it did work out for him.
Again.. i loved it. It was acted extremely well.. and i don't discount any part of it.. at all.
Thank you al. Splendid!
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Don't Interrupt (1958)
i liked it
I liked this episode. I liked it because.. well.. what a nice thing to do.. take a trip on a train. And the warmth of the train when it was so cold outside. How cozy. And the little kid with the cowboy get up on. That is something kids don't have these days. And i don't see it as a wrong thing in its time. I mean, it wouldn't be wrong now either.. but we live in a different time. I liked the suspense.. not knowing what would happen.. whether they would help the man outside or not. The parents were obviously not wise, but that was a part of the plot and the story would not have worked with them being wise.
I don't know.. i just liked the whole story. I liked the old man cowboy telling the story and talking to the family.. and the boy.
I liked the episode.
Sorry this is not a more interesting review.. but i just wanted to say that i liked it.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Return of the Hero (1958)
it depends on where you are coming from
In my opinion.. this episode is valuable. Obviously it is fiction.. but there is a lot of truth in fiction.. even sometimes more truth than there is in non-fiction.. if you get my drift.
I guess i'm responding, really.. because the review that was on the imdb page when i brought the page for this episode up was very negative.. and only gave this 4/10.
A very cynical review. I don't need that. I think that this is a fine show. I may be naive.. but i don't think so. But though i am not naive.. the other reviewer is.. like i said.. cynical. That doesn't bring anything good.
Spoiler alert now..
i had seen this episode before.. but it was a while ago.. and i forgot how it turned out.. but i remembered that it was something.. well.. poignant. When you think about the fact that the mother is married a second time.. and therefore would want to please the husband.. who is the wealthy one.. then you can see that she is shallow. I think it is a witty show.. with him being without the leg.. and having said his friend who saved him is missing the leg.. to test the waters.. so to speak.. and then to find out what he probably knew all along.. that his family.. except for lili.. was really just a bunch of empty people.
I like the episode and i would highly recommend it.
Lake of Fire (2006)
headline
While watching it i was pretty open and i watched the whole thing. however, at the end i realized that basically the side of the pro life movement had been given short shrift. the worst elements of the 'pro life' movement were put on full display. and that is not what the pro live movement is. that is certainly not what individual people who are pro life are. the 'experts' were all from the liberal perspective. people who are naive would probably be persuaded by them. however, the bible is the word of God. what it says is real and true. hell is real. heaven is real. the abortionists who were killed are in hell now. they will be there forever. the woman at the end did evil. abortion is murder. the devil is real. we will all go to the judgment of God. Jesus Christ is Lord. one of the ploys of people who are in the pocket of satan.. such as chomsky.. though he doesn't even know it i am sure.. because he is deceived by the father of lies.. is that they think they have the right to discuss things they have no right to discuss. they do not understand that their words are foolish. they do not understand that their talking about whether pro life people care about how foreign governments are treated by the usa has nothing at all to do with whether abortion is wrong. but they want to detract. chomsky is a bitter old soul about to go to hell forever. also.. the one woman.. who is also damned, who talks about abortion and mentions the catholic church.. (she is part of catholics for free choice or something) which is a false church.. says something like.. 'most people don't know the catholic church has never made a decree about when life begins.' it is hard to state how stupid a statement like that is. she is deceived. but willfully. it doesn't matter what the catholic church has made a decree about or not. it's a false church. the bible is the word of God. anyone who reads it knows the catholic church does not follow it. and as for her bringing up the stupid issue of 'when life begins.. ' no one gave her the right to bring up that issue or speak those words. they are incredibly foolish words. the reality is that if you bring up the issue of 'when life begins.. ' you are saying that it doesn't begin at conception. it's the old ploy of satan. question, question, question. hath God really said? deny. sow doubt. obviously it is an incredibly stupid question. it is an evil question. abortion is murder. God kills murderers in the lake of fire forever. it's called the second death. woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.
Advice and Dissent (2002)
why not?
good little short. i could see it coming. pleasant. what ought to be. sometimes the reality is in the doing. the rest of this review must be foolish because i don't have anything else to say but i have to type in here five, see, i would have used 5, but i can use that too, lines, to have it published. there. now i think it's ready.
The Daydreamer (1966)
worth it
like or not like. have certain expectations, or do not have certain expectations. beautiful ideas. check. sweet song in "Be a Happy Guy too." check. profundity in the Tree of Knowledge. check. sweetness all around. check. ingratitude for the skill and talent which produced this movie. no check. smug criticism by "sophisticated" reviewers. check. proof the movie is good and is truly a delight by the reviews of smug critics. check, and thank you. i guess i have to write more, because my review isn't able to be published without 10 lines. OK, here's some more. and more yet. OK, i'll keep writing.. is this enough? how about this? and is this enough? and what about this? am i in a college class? am i back in my film class in college? i don't feel that young anymore. maybe the sandman has brought me there.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Escape to Sonoita (1960)
i don't understand
OK.. when i came here to check out if anyone else noticed the inconsistency i immediately saw that it had 8.2 stars. my only thought was this. it's because it had burt reynolds in it. who cares? OK. so now to the inconsistency. at the early part of the show, the old man says that they will wait for a while and start the truck back up and continue going. the radiator was dry. there was no evidence it was a water truck. and the only explanation was that they were going to wait a bit, then start it again and see how much further they could go. then at the end we find out it's a water truck? very poorly executed plot. very unclear. mixed messages sent. 8.2 stars? yeah, right.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Cream of the Jest (1957)
i disagree with the other reviewers
there is no reason why this shouldn't get 10. if one thinks about the links in it and the logicalness of it thoroughly, one can find that there are answers and that it is a good story. for the shortsighted, however, who cannot see these answers, that says nothing about the piece, but only about their lack of insight. I challenge the watchers of this to think deeply about how it all fits together. I will not go into detail, because it would be too long. suffice it to say that in my opinion the other people who reviewed it and said "contrived," and "sub-standard Hitchcock," did not really understand it in all its ability to be understood. bottom line, I guess those who will understand it, will, and those who won't, won't. sorry I am not going to explain it for you. think about it. try and put the pieces together. if you think about it well enough, you will put the pieces together, and end up appreciating it. that's where I ended up, and it was a pleasure to get there.