Reviews

No, it was filmed over many years before finally being released. She was probably in her 90s when her part was filmed.

I loved this episode. Unlike the other reviewer, I thought having Susan underplay everything was not only appropriate, but very creepy. At one point, I even thought the police investigator was the attacker! And was that Ryan O'Neal in the police lineup in an uncredited cameo!? (He would have been either 19 or 20, just about the right age at this time.)

Not a bad episode, but the character names are all wrong. "Gordie" is actually called "Richie" all through the episode and his father, "Mr. Pratt" is actually addressed as "Mr. Peterson" by Donna. IMDB doesn't correct this because the characters are actually named wrong in the closing credits of the episode. How does this sort of thing happen?? Didn't anyone in the sixties proof-read the credits before they were aired!? Very strange....and slip-shod.

This episode features Hitchcock's DAUGHTER, not his WIFE (as the previous review mistakenly states). Hitch's wife was Alma, not Patricia. One of the better episodes, as stated by several other reviewers.

We saw this last week at a special screening as part of the SAG Film Society series and it just blew everything else we had seen away! I really loved Breathe and Wild River, but this was not only riveting in its development and surprising in its plot twists, but just fascinating to watch. The plot is crafted like an intricate puzzle that slowly spins out as the characters interact and react in completely unpredictable ways. The only thing I did NOT like about it is the ending, because I felt it not only left the audience hanging in the middle of the film, without resolving to a satisfying (for me) conclusion, but I also did not want it to END! That's how fascinating the characterizations are. McDormand and Rockwell are both standouts, but Harrelson definitely holds his own with them, as well as all of the supporting cast. I don't usually write reviews, but this was so memorable that I had to post something. I will not give anything away because it is better the less you know, but GO SEE IT!!!

I hated this movie. So much. The worst part was that the ending made absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever. First he dies. Then he's NOT dead. Huh?!? What?!? Makes no sense. None. What were they thinking? Really. I have looked all over the comments, postings and trivia sections on IMDb to find some explanation for this, but no one seems to have noticed it except for me. Strange. And then you have to write a review that goes on and on just so you can fill ten lines of text. How stupid is that? Why would a good review have to have ten Iines? Isn't nine lines (or less!) enough to sum up a movie that has virtually no plot development, no character development, and no script whatsoever to speak of?!? I ask you. I'm just grateful that I didn't pay to see this in the theatre....

I was just taken to see this as a birthday present, and I must say that, although Radcliffe does some very good work in it, and the new ending they came up with was fresh and interesting (if a bit twisted), I really felt disappointed that the stage play, which I saw several years ago in an EXCELLENT local production in Los Angees, was so much better. Except for one moment in the middle (you'll know it when you see it, but you won't find any spoilers here), I didn't find it scary at all, and all of the interviews with Radcliffe have hopelessly built it up to be "really scary" (Radcliffe's words). It's not. The stage play made me jump SEVERAL times AND has the wonderful added layer of the actor being hired by the older Kipps to play his younger self (with the actor ultimately finding himself BECOMING Kipps in a never-ending cycle), which the movie completely dropped for some mysterious and unexplained reason. That said, the film does have some great cinematography and moody lighting effects, but nothing we haven't seen done to death (and better) in the "Potter" series of films.