The Long Shot

I've seen so many plots where a man finds out about an inheritance that is being held for someone. Many B movies use this plot. If they can get rid of this person, they can swoop in and grab the money. One need only think for a moment how incredibly hard this would be. All it takes is one eye witness. What about a photograph? We are talking big money here. Peter Lawford is a small time gambler, in trouble with his bookie. He becomes the unwitting accomplice to his rival, a man who will talk about nothing but London. Given the opportunity, he will off this guy and move in. The guy is an utter bore. Being a Hitchcock episode, there are some surprises along the way. It's just that the plot is so far fetched we just know something is going to screw it up.

Except for the talky middle, the entry holds interest throughout. Englishman, gambler Charlie Raymond (Lawford) is flat broke and fleeing New York from a bookie he owes money to. So he pretends to be respectable by hiring on with English gentleman (Williams) who needs companionship while driving to San Francisco. On the way, Charlie discovers his companion is set to inherit a fortune by simply turning up at an attorney's office in Frisco and verifying his identity. So the wheels start turning on more than just the car.

It's really a Lawford showcase as he manages the shifty-eyed schemer in fine fashion. Catch how subtly he reacts to his companion's endless ruminations on life in London. We know there's more going on than meets the eye since this is Hitchcock. But what. Stay tuned. And, oh yes, don't look for any shapely girls in his male exclusive 30-minutes.

Peter Lawford stars as a ne'er-do-well gambler who is bound to get his legs broken, or worse, if he doesn't get out of town. He owes someone a lot of money...so he accepts the job of a traveling companion....so he can go from New York to San Francisco, and out of harm's way. Along the drive, his traveling companion (John Williams) turns out to be a bore...and he seems to talk nonstop about life in London. What's next? See the show.

The acting and writing are very good here. As I mentioned in the summary, the twist at the end isn't completely surprising...but it is satisfying and enjoyable. Well worth seeing.

Peter Lawford is very good as a shifty gambler . Can gamblers be ever trusted? Never in Alfred Hitchcock presents!! John Williams was a underrated actor. His most high profile role probably opposite Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder!)

I gave it a 10 !!

The twist is everything in this series!! If we haven't got a twist in this series it isn't a proper Hitchcock episode!! In this episode we know certain things ie the main character will not succeed!! Most reviewers haven't mentioned the twist!! I think they are wise! The twist is ALL in this series!! If the audience gets it at the start then the program is in trouble!!

I like this episode very much. I think it has: Great acting, twist and a good interesting story. I was very surprised by the twist in this episode. I liked the twist, but i will not say when it happens in the episode.

As you may know, frequently cast in Hitchcock's films and this TV-series, it stars the British actor John Williams. Who was in at least 10 episodes of this series. I like him as an actor. I think he is great. He doesn't disappoint me in this episode. I also think Peter Lawford did well. One could think that it was Alfred Hitchcock who directed this. I mean by the interesting story and twist. So, i recommend this episode very much.