caseyabell
Joined Jul 2013
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
caseyabell's rating
Like everybody else, I loved Lillian Gish's performance as the annoying busybody who sets off a crazy chain of fatal consequences in a bucolic bit of the American countryside. The two-wrongs-make-a-right plot is bitterly ironic, as befits the bitterly ironic lady played by Miss Lillian.
The problem, as one reviewer sourly notes, is that the plot turns on a ridiculously mistaken identification of, yes, the body in the barn. I know this was before the days of DNA analysis, but a glance at dental records would have easily confirmed that the corpse couldn't be the hen-pecked husband. There's some hand-waving about "quicklime," but that would have had no effect on those pesky little teeth. What can you say? Sometimes you really do have to suspend disbelief.
Meanwhile, the body count piles up pretty high for such a cozy drama, which in a way is also appropriate to bring out the nastiness underlying the pastoral surroundings. Lillian Gish easily dominates the proceedings, though the other actors also turn in fine performances. And thanks to one reviewer for reminding me of who Maggie McNamara resembled. Audrey Hepburn! Just couldn't quite put my finger on the resemblance as I watched the episode. Sorry to hear from other reviewers that she committed suicide.
Hitch as the scarecrow was also a funny bit. I wonder how he would have contributed to The Wizard of Oz.
The problem, as one reviewer sourly notes, is that the plot turns on a ridiculously mistaken identification of, yes, the body in the barn. I know this was before the days of DNA analysis, but a glance at dental records would have easily confirmed that the corpse couldn't be the hen-pecked husband. There's some hand-waving about "quicklime," but that would have had no effect on those pesky little teeth. What can you say? Sometimes you really do have to suspend disbelief.
Meanwhile, the body count piles up pretty high for such a cozy drama, which in a way is also appropriate to bring out the nastiness underlying the pastoral surroundings. Lillian Gish easily dominates the proceedings, though the other actors also turn in fine performances. And thanks to one reviewer for reminding me of who Maggie McNamara resembled. Audrey Hepburn! Just couldn't quite put my finger on the resemblance as I watched the episode. Sorry to hear from other reviewers that she committed suicide.
Hitch as the scarecrow was also a funny bit. I wonder how he would have contributed to The Wizard of Oz.
I'm not as enthusiastic as other reviewers about this installment. I like action and suspense from my Hitchcock episodes, not talky disquisitions on legal ethics.
To be honest, the ethical issues hardly seem clear-cut to me. Are defense attorneys only supposed to defend innocent clients? Perry Mason had that luxury, but in the real world most criminal defendants are guilty, guilty, guilty. And their lawyers know that they are guilty, guilty, guilty. Does that mean the lawyers should run to the prosecutors with evidence against their clients? Then why bother with defense attorneys in the first place?
Beyond the legalities, the episode dawdles along with way too much talking and agonizing over the ethical conundrum. Things finally start to move at the end, but the padding is excessive throughout the middle half of the show.
I still give the episode five stars for Frank Gorshin's crazily over-the-top performance as the perp. He could genuinely scare any audience with his barely controlled psycho act. Speaking of Psycho, maybe we should have heard shrieking strings every time Gorshin appeared onscreen. Martin Landau chips in a solid performance as the tormented lawyer, though Gorshin overshadows him and everybody else in the episode.
To be honest, the ethical issues hardly seem clear-cut to me. Are defense attorneys only supposed to defend innocent clients? Perry Mason had that luxury, but in the real world most criminal defendants are guilty, guilty, guilty. And their lawyers know that they are guilty, guilty, guilty. Does that mean the lawyers should run to the prosecutors with evidence against their clients? Then why bother with defense attorneys in the first place?
Beyond the legalities, the episode dawdles along with way too much talking and agonizing over the ethical conundrum. Things finally start to move at the end, but the padding is excessive throughout the middle half of the show.
I still give the episode five stars for Frank Gorshin's crazily over-the-top performance as the perp. He could genuinely scare any audience with his barely controlled psycho act. Speaking of Psycho, maybe we should have heard shrieking strings every time Gorshin appeared onscreen. Martin Landau chips in a solid performance as the tormented lawyer, though Gorshin overshadows him and everybody else in the episode.