Ripshin

Frankly, every time one of the episodes of this series is set in a small town, most of the actors speak with a ridiculously fake, twangy hillbilly accent. It is distracting, and pointless. Couldn't they find actors with natural accents? Plus, it is so unnecessary to the plot. I'm surprised that they aren't playing banjos, with stalks of straw in their teeth.

Loggia's performance is weak. Basically yelling a large percentage of his lines.

He threw the button on the ground for somebody else to find? With his FINGERPRINTS on it?

Why would "Driver's" wife put herself in danger with questions, if she really believes he killed Bette Rose? Especially with his temper. Also, why didn't she scream LOUDLY when she had the chance?

I'm not convinced that the mute character was essential.

Another one to skip.

John Cassavetes is far too over the top in this episode. He's annoying whenever he's on screen. Scene after scene...he's just yelling sometimes.

Rowland fares much better.

What is surprising, is that actor Murray Matheson, who plays Rowland's "older" husband, was just 51 at the time!! He could pass for 75+.

The plot is dull. Many minutes pass without much happening.

The set design for the "play" is quite ugly - it should be presented as more than some "community theater" production.

I lasted about half-way, and turned it off. The first "Hitchcock Hour" that I have stopped watching.

Just skip it.

I wonder what viewers thought, seeing the exterior and interior sets of "Leave It to Beaver" in this episode, only six months after that series ended. Somewhat iconic at the time. Kind of like seeing the studio interior set from "The Brady Bunch" torched in the awful horror film "Bug" (1975), just a year after the series ended.

I thoroughly enjoy both Newhart and Withers, but this episode is a bit shrill and tedious.

The soundtrack is odd - a bit 'breezy"/jaunty/light jazzy, and distracting.

The rat poison plot is ridiculous, as is the conclusion.

Thirty years ago, I had the please of speaking with Withers on the phone, when attempting to set up a screening of one of her early films. She was charming, and she wanted to attend. Unfortunately #@*% Twentieth Century Fox (at the time) wouldn't allow us to obtain a copy of the film.

I do not recommend this episode. You won't be missing much if you skip it.

Well, at least they didn't present the small town residents as a bunch of hillbillies. Only a few short scenes of townspeople with a slight accent.

I found it odd, that when the first two murders were discovered, a bunch of rubber-necking town folks show up. It appeared to be an isolated location.

"Darrin Stephens" doesn't make for the most forceful sheriff.

I found the whole "I had to kill everyone who owned the car, because there wasn't a date of death" conclusion to be quite lame.

I have not read the Ellery Queen short story, "Terror Town," on which this episode is based. Another review states that it doesn't involve a car.

Without a doubt, one of the most bland entries in the series. The plot, what there is of one, is a total bore.

However, the most negative aspect is Anne Baxter's performance - a major ham fest. This is nothing new, of course. Of her work, the only thing I've ever enjoyed is "All About Eve."

Segal doesn't fare much better. James Farentino plays a somewhat similar character in Season 3, and nails it.

Her fawning over "Larry Duke" is ludicrous, especially after the initial scenes with her character being strong and assured. We are to believe that she immediately turns into a simpering fool?

"Hitchcock Hour" often presents intelligent women doing incredibly stupid things (murder, usually), all in the name of "love." I would expect that from 1950s TV, but not in the mid-60s. Of course, Hitchcock and women - to be expected. (Although the episodes are based on the works of writers., of course.)

Even the conclusion is insipid.

Skip it.

Hitchcock Hour consistently presents Southerners as drawling idiots.

The accents in this episode are horrendous, particularly Kathie Browne's, portraying her "Mavis" character as an excruciating (yet murdering) dimwit.

And George Lindsey has a natural, pleasant accent, yet he is directed to speak in an exaggerated manner. Just annoying, as is his stereotypical performance as "Sam." (It does tone down a bit, as the episode progresses.)

"Bed of Roses" is padded with several pointless, or drawn out, scenes. The timeline makes no sense. George finds his dead "girlfriend" in the middle of the night, and leaves without reporting it to the police, yet the newspapers have a detailed story a few hours later.

The first three-quarters of the episode takes place within 24 hours??

The conclusion is an out-of-the-blue contrivance. And of course, Hitchcock makes the standard "criminals always get captured" wrap-up. Meh.

The three stars are for Patrick O/Neal - always a pleasure to watch.

This episode is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Wonky plot. Bad acting.

Where to start? LOTS of horrible supporting performances.

I am puzzled how this even made it through the screening process. Sloppy beyond belief. Awful.

Safe to say, this is the worst episodes of the series.

Kathleen Nolan's performance is cringe-worthy. I blame the director.

The conclusion is hilarious, and not in a good way. I couldn't stop laughing.

Seriously, this is really, really ridiculous.

WOW. What's with the "mirror" stuff?

Seriously, THE. WORST. EPISODE. Inept, at a student film level.

Have a drink, and watch this. Just...just...just.

Why shouldn't Swanson's "Mrs. Daniels" get away with her plan, as she didn't actually murder him? Why would she end up in jail?

It's great to see Swanson, but she tends to chew the scenery, unlike Lillian Gish in her performance the same season.

MacArthur's take on "Dave" is fine, although his little happy dance at the end seems forced. (And does his "song" include a word that kind of shocks me for 1963?)

The whole suicide scheme is ridiculous, especially if "Bonnie" knows that she can't survive barbiturates. And I don't buy just because she recently turned eighteen, she couldn't recognize that Dave is horrible. (I know, I know - her "upbringing." Supposedly. Meh.)

Gish is really in top form - her performance sets the perfect tone, without going over the top, something many actors fall victim to in this series. The supporting cast is also quite good.

My only complaint would be the second half, when the plot gets a bit outlandish. Yes, typical Hitchcock Hour, but it might have been manipulated a bit better.

I would need to watch it again, but I don't remember when the people in the town all found out that the body in the barn wasn't Mr. Wilkins. Obviously after Mrs. Wilkins was executed - Gish is listening to the news report about it, when Mr. Wilkins suddenly appears. I assume at that point.

I also had difficulty "buying" that Gish's niece is part of the deception - that seems contrived. Did they "fish" Efram out of the rapids?

Definitely a worthy episode.

I always enjoy seeing Thaxter in an episode - she's consistently great. Parker and Merrill are also excellent.

The casting of a few of the supporting characters is weak, particularly Furth as "Charlie." He's too much of a dim-wit. This is often the case when this series has a small town setting. Half the people act like rubes.

The plot, as a few user reviewers point out, is quite idiotic when you really think about it. Why bring attention to her disappearance? Just tell the neighbors she left him. Keep your "story" consistent. Granted, questions would arise, being that the murdered wife was so active in the small community. However, just leave the body where it was originally buried. Give it some time, then get together as a (murdering) couple. Move in Mrs. Logan's house. (That house has appeared in a few Hitchcock Hour episodes.)

I certainly didn't care for the dog/rat poison stuff, but it was apparently necessary for the silly "scheme."

Definitely worth watching. And, no, I did not foresee the ending - that was a surprise.

First of all. The casting of Stubby Kaye? Horrendous in the role of "George." He is a cartoonish mess, and it is completely unbelievable that he would ever have been married to "Lana," regardless if she were seventeen at the time. His line delivery belongs in some lame C-level comedy from the Forties. Fortunately, he is the victim almost half-way through (as was obvious from the start) - I came very close to turning off the episode.

And, of course, Alice Pearce plays a variation of the same character she performs in almost everything she does.

The whole border inspection scenario seems quite unlikely.

The ending is idiotic, and you can see it coming. The body would NOT have been moved before the house was unlocked. The agent would NOT have snuck the press into the cottage, no matter the attempted plot set-up of appeasing "Haila."

An episode to be missed.

I just watched this for the first time, as an adult. I can see how it can be quite creepy for young kids, but I don't find it to be that effective. And back when this first aired, people were also watching "The Twilight Zone," so I imagine that this was not completely a surprise.

Actually, I was enjoying it, until the ending came around. How are they going to explain what happened to the child? Will they assume that "Nell" is insane? Of course, the others will see that the doll now looks like "Eva." I just can't take the ending at face value. The girl turned into a doll..."The End." What happens to "Numa"?

The doll switcheroo is a gimmick.

The commenters have gone a bit over-the-top with ecstatic praise.

Basically, a good episode for children, who likely won't ask logical questions after viewing.

With some slight adjustments, this could very well be turned into a stage play. As many have commented - lots of talk, and very little action.

McDowall is usually quite "hammy" with his performances, and this is no exception. Zimbalist is also over-the-top, which is not the norm for him.

How many times could "George" have whacked "The Stranger" with that shovel?

I will admit, that I didn't figure out the conclusion. The reveal is quite understated. I suppose that The Stranger's earlier comment about shooting The Wife's previous lover in the leg, causing him to limp, should have been a give-away.

Maybe I missed something, but I am confused as to why The Wife is so repulsed by The Stranger, who in reality is her previous lover, not her husband. And I assume her actual husband did shoot The Stranger at some point.

OK, Blyden's performance is good. He pretty much is the only thing that makes this watchable. Thus, three stars.

But seriously, nobody recognizes him with a wig, and fake beard? For years, I had really long hair, and a goatee. Recently, I chopped it all off, and nobody had any trouble knowing who I am. As another commenter stated (paraphrased), "What is this? Clark Kent?"

The whole landlady stuff is pointless. All this guy has to do, is admit his disguise. Sooner than he did.

Frankly, this episode feels awkward. This guy is making an absolute fool of himself. WHO would do this?

The final act just gets weird, and stupid. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a hot mess "twist." Just lame, bad writing.

I find some of the comments to be quite hilarious - especially the analysis by one over-eager fan. Symbolism, symbolism, symbolism! Yikes. I understand the reasoning, I just find it extreme.

Numerous unnecessary scenes. Bland supporting performances by most, although Roger Carmel chews the scenery. His second secretary - the lover of all things culturally Hispanic - is presented as too much of a dimwit.

It is ludicrous how everyone in Ernie's life just suddenly dumps on him. It became comical, and therefore losing any impact of a supposed analogy to the dreams/rewards expected by Mid-Century middle class Americans.

Overall, one to skip. (Yes, I do appreciate the soundtrack.)

This one is SO easy to figure out. I don't understand the raves in here. Using the "Psycho" house as a set is a tip-off...intended?

I get tired of these older films/TV series where women just scream helplessly, instead of grabbing a heavy object, and FIGHTING. Well, the nurse FINALLY does grab a fire poker, but makes poor use of it.

Latham as the drunk housekeeper is nothing more than annoying.

John Kerr had such a promising early acting career, before delving into TV series, and eventually becoming a lawyer.

How are people finding this frightening, unless they're recounting their experience of viewing it as a child. People honestly can't discern that the heavy-set nurse is a man??

Bloch does seem to get in a rut. Remote motel/hotel, weird innkeeper. Woman in peril.

This started out somewhat cartoonish, and does indeed, get creepy. The limited supporting cast, and the filming location, leave a lot to be desired. It is reminiscent of some lame 80s horror flick.

OK, the ending...is she dead, or paralyzed? A spinal injury? Yes, the second "Cliff" walks into the barn the final time, it is obvious what's going on.

Somewhat sad to see Tone in a role like this. He would act in a few more projects, before dying in 1968.

Perry is perfectly cast in the lead - he's probably the only reason I'd ever suggest that somebody watch this episode.

The plot in this entry is a tad convoluted at times - at least initially.

The performances of both Cannon and Barry are one-note, and grating. I am curious as to why Patricia Barry received a "Special Guest Star" credit, considering the number of A-list actors who have guested on the show, without that title. She is basically just an Ice Queen for the entire episode. Cannon is an acquired taste. His comical frown can be quite distracting.

The dinner (?) guests in an early scene are pointless additions. There are quite a few scenes which are totally unnecessary. As many have said, these hour-long episodes would be much better, edited to thirty minutes.

To correct another commenter, the woman shot by "Kendall" in the last scene is NOT a stranger - she is the wife of the sheriff. Thus, we finally know why former deputy "Woodman" was fired. Now, was Woodman also hitting on Kendall's girlfriend? Possibly. Or he was just messing with the new deputy. Going back to the sheriff's wife...there is some foreshadowing, as her character is presented as being somewhat "flirty" with Kendall.

Gavin gives his standard deadpan performance. Perhaps this was an intentional hiring, to offset the underlying violence in his character's personality.

The innkeeper? Bad casting. Far too cartoonish.

Overall, a good episode - just heavily padded.

The raving reviews in here are quite hard to comprehend. This idiotic film "drags" out every stereotype you can imagine about gay men, and multiplies them by ten. Yes, I understand that this film portrays a certain time, and its attitudes towards homosexuality. So what? It was offensive then, as it is now. Gays are continually described as not "normal," or perverts.

Everybody swishes around, and acts catty.

No, this isn't a campy gem of a movie. There were numerous protests of this film upon its release, BY the gay community.

I am sure many straight viewers think this is a hoot. If so, I question WHY they think it is a 10 out of 10. In 2024, I can't imagine a gay man finding this anything but repulsive.

Even considering the time frame, when this was made.

Gunshot wound? No Blood? Fingerprints? Anywhere?

She's flying a PLANE?? HUH?

Listen, I love Columbo, but this stuff gets old, really fast.

I actually despise this show, the more that I watch it. SO, he's figured out EVERYTHING from the opening moment?

I know that this was one, of two, pilots, for the show.

I hate that I have to keep typing, just because we are required to have a certain number of "characters." When did this come into being? I used to be able to type concise reviews. This is tedious, and non-productive. Almost there.....

Yes, so many users seem to love this episode. A "special" episode with, frankly, very little humor. Does that make it obligatory to wuv it? This is a SITCOM, not a dramedy. The highlight of such a brilliantly written comedy series, would NOT be THIS.

The parking scene is tedious. The dorm section is creepy. The proposal ending just "thunderously" terrible.

Frankly, I find this entire episode to be about as lame as they come.

Oh, and the airport scene is truly cringe-worthy.

So, folks, it is "the best of the series"? WHY? It just feels like a token episode. "Oh, let's show that we can 'do' drama." Spare me.

The series was already floundering by the fifth season, and the sixth is a "hot" mess. Sharp humor started getting partially replaced with lame "wackiness," of the cringe-worthy type.

This is how NOT to end a series.

Toss in two new characters (in the FINAL episode) to marry off to series regulars?

A weak, stereotypical Vegas wedding?

Take most of the action away from the two iconic sets - home and bar?

Ok, so they all end up staying in Cleveland? Really. I will assume that Elka and Bob ended up in the house. (By the way, the home exteriors are an actual house outside of Cleveland.)

The "five years later" tag is cloying and twee.

...it can't get any worse, they toss out this thing.

This episode really tanks. Voodoo doll? Garry Marshall in zombie mode? A Baldwin brother? A garbage heap? Numerous "cute dog" inserts?

I didn't watch this series during its initial run, but I've been binge-watching, due to a lack of streaming content this winter. What started out as a somewhat cute show, has morphed into one of the worst sitcoms in television history.

Considering the quality of the on-screen talent, there is really no excuse for the incredibly awful scripts. I don't know how much input Sean Hayes had with this show, but you'd think he would have steered it in a better direction.

Great to see Betty White, as usual.

Truly one of the worst sitcoms episodes I have ever seen.

You think that it can't possibly get any worse, but it keeps topping itself.

Season Five just gets more and more ridiculous, and cringe-worthy.

It's sad to see such talented actresses just hamming it up, scene after scene. At times, I think that the writer(s) felt that they were somehow pulling off some "I Love Lucy" antics, but this is FAR from it.

Granted, this is TVLand, but the earlier seasons are quite watchable. I don't fault the performers at all. They are all really good at handling WELL-WRITTEN laughs. There is no need to resort to bargain-basement "comedy."