Avis des utilisateurs

Frank Partridge (Sidney Blackmer) and his wife plot to cheat their life insurance company by having her hide out for seven years and declared legally dead, but an investigator believes Mr. Partridge has murdered her.

If the downfalls of this episode could be summed up briefly, I think they tried to fit too much into 25 minutes. As far-fetched as the plot may be, it would make a decent movie, but you have to develop it a bit more. It is not as simple as just moving away... I suspect unless the wife got a whole new identity, they would be able to find her sooner or later...

But, as far as a short story goes, it is alright. If we suspend our disbelief for a bit, it has a nice arc, and there is always the "comeuppance" that makes this show, "Twilight Zone" or even "Tales From the Crypt" so appealing.

Nothing remarkable here, just patented Hitchcock programming. Blackmer and Gregg are a penniless middle-aged couple who can't come up with rent money. They're obviously respectable and deeply attached to one another. But where to get the needed money. At this point Hitchcock takes over. They concoct an insurance scam, where she will disappear for seven years after which she will be declared legally dead, and then they can collect a fat insurance settlement. Gregg balks because she fears seven years of independence after decades as a dowdy housewife. But then they are desperate. What mastermind Blackmer hasn't counted on, however, is dogged insurance investigator Emhardt or his mousy wife.

The contest of wills between the wily Emhardt, who suspects murder, and the resolute Blackmer makes an interesting contrast. The series wisely used Emhardt in key roles over the years, -even today; that combination of baby-faced menace in a middle-aged man remains truly distinctive. Gregg's role is the demanding one since she has to carry the episode's irony, but then she was one of the great TV actresses of the day. The Hitchcock stamp emerges in showing how larceny lurks beneath even the most ordinary looking people, and, of course, in the twist ending which strikes me, nonetheless, as not very plausible. Couldn't a more plausible motivation for gardening have been concocted.

Of course, subjecting the entire screenplay to logical analysis turns up gaps that admittedly could have been improved upon even in a 30-minute format. But that misses the point, which is the insistent Hitchcockian one- that crime turns up in the unlikeliest places. Add to that the subversive note about the hidden potential of even the most dependent housewife, and you have an interesting allegory (not an essay, which would require filling in the gaps) on middle-class respectability, -a frequent Hitchcock target, especially appropriate to the conformist 1950's. No, this is not unblemished Hitchcock, but neither is it a wash-out.

An interesting story about fraud and love and money. That was very intriguing from the start and we wondering what will happened until the end. They put a time limit (7 years) and we wondering if they will get caught in the process or if they will succeed to do it but some others events will make the whole thing more difficult to hide the truth.

Early story for the master of tales, Robert C. Dennis, who would go on to write 30 episodes for Hitch. He later wrote for scores of top Warner Brothers/ABC TV shows, moving on to cop shows in the 70s.

This one has bit of everything, from greed, to dark comedy to murder, just what Hitch ordered.

One of the screen greats, Sidney Blackmer plays Frank, a calculating businessman who strikes up a plan with his wife (Virginia Gregg) to simply "disappear" for about seven years? --so they can collect on a hefty life insurance policy and live happily ever after.

It all sounds far fetched, but when you come down to it, it could be carried out --IF, IF you have the patience --and don't have a steely eyed detective breathing down your neck. Robert Emhardt is super in this role, best in these low key parts and with a smirk. Just love this guy.

I agree with the last reviewer, and never thought about it until now. Frank and his wife are supposed to be a poor couple, yet he sets her up in an apartment to hide out (for years!) and regularly flies to see her during holidays. Where did he get the money?

Poetic license 101, but don't let that detour you.

The real fun (or war of nerves) is between Frank and detective Kettle (Emhardt). Cheers to Sidney Blackmer, who appeared in over 100 classic films, known for playing Teddy Roosevelt. Prior to this episode he guest starred in THE HIGH AND THE MIGHTY.

A gem. No other way to spell it. SEASON 1 EPISODE 4 remastered Universal dvd box set. 2005. 16 hrs total length.

Frank Partridge and his wife plot to cheat their life insurance company by having her hide out for 7 years and declared legally dead, but an investigator believes Mr. Partridge has murdered her. An interesting tale about fraud and avarice, and even though there some plot holes ( which thriller doesn't have them?), it is still an engaging watch with some fine performances.

A few years ago, I didn't recognize her when I watched this. Today, I zeroed in right on her and kept wondering if it was her, so I came here. It was her expressions, that darkening of her eyes. It's her! I always enjoy Virgina Gregg in anything I've seen her in. She had quite the camera presence. She was quite prolific in Dragnet (the show that wasn't what it purported itself to be!) and also saw her in Bewitched, Hazel and Charlie's Angels. She was always good. And here, she looks a lot older than she did on (the later) Dragnet! How is that possible that she was only 39, according to her posted D. O. B.!?

Looking closer, her teeth are very different. Here, they are long, in Dragnet, she had a gap in between her top center teeth. Anyway, considering people looked a lot older then than today, I placed her at 55+. Imagine my surprise when I just did the math to uncover "39". But she looks elderly! Most people in their 30s look barely 20!

Anyway, this is a good premise on how to make money when you poor. And White, in the 50s, haha! Another is to dig up some cannisters filled with gold coins in your backyard. Ever hear "they're keeping us poor"? Apparently, you're supposed to turn over to the state any treasure you find. How does that not make the state crooks!? Of course it does! They are billionaires (no matter where you are located) and they want your meager pension and let you starve! UGH! I can understand if you go diving for Spanish gold doubloons, but in your backyard?? Bleep them! Finders keepers! That's how it should be.

This is a good episode showing the moral decay of society already in the 1950s. Was there ever an era where they didn't "keep you poor"?? What will it take? Besides being born one of the elite? Didn't the elite meet a fitting fate, once? I believe it came post "let them eat cake!" phrase. Then there's the trap of "life insurance". Whichever insurance you buy (car, life, house, health etc.) you are expected to pay religiously every month. Get on the receiving end, and guess what happens? Deny, depose, what's the 3rd D? Well anyway. The moral of the story is never buy life insurance, if you uncover Spanish or English gold doubloons, keep your piehole shut and it's us vs. Them. Be careful who you trust, have a deep safe and get ready to fill it up! PS: Virginia looked younger at the conclusion, after 7 years had passed.

8/10.

Not the best Alfred Hitchcock Presents story but not as bad as number 3.

They couldn't wait a month, they decided to hatch this plan where it would take seven years? I mean sure you get that lump sum then, but if there's much better job is coming their way in just 30 short days, they should've just rode that out.

An older couple, Frank and Mildred (Sidney Blackmer and Virginia Gregg) are in a financial bind and they've come to realize that they'll have nothing when it comes to retirement. So, they devise a stupid plan...to have Mildred go to another place and assume a new identity. Then, Frank will report her missing and, if all goes well, he can have her declared dead after seven years declare her dead...and collect on her insurance policy. But there's a problem with this...the insurance investigator (Robert Emhardt) is determined to prove that Frank killed his wife!

While this is an interesting episode, the logistics of this plan are pretty crazy. Plus, although the couple is supposed to be poor, they spend to create two households and he periodically flies off to meet her...and that cannot be cheap! Plus, they keep calling each other....and you'd think this would create a phone record trail. So, it's interesting....though not altogether believable. Plus, if the couple love each other as much as they claim, you wonder HOW such a plan could possibly succeed.

Overall, this is just an okay episode. While the ending is enjoyable the entire scheme just seemed crazy and improbable beyond belief. Not terrible but also not all that good either.

This episode is ludicrous. From a loving couple to a plot to be financially free. The huge risk of hiding out for seven years. The watchdog insurance guy. What's in it for him. He is Javert. He is obsessed. The whole plan is so far fetched that one can never become involved in it. We have people who have no money, yet they maintain the home that was about to be foreclosed on and the other goes to San Francisco and lives there. These are plot elements that can't be forgiven. The man seems to have a happy life. The wife is miserable and in love with him. It should have been obvious to him that he was never going to see that money when the insurance guy suspected him from the beginning. I don't know about companies in the fifties, but there would have been some investigation. What about the police. It's just a terrible episode.

'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' started off greatly with "Revenge" and "Premonition", but sadly hit a stumbling block with the disappointing "Triggers in Leash". Season 1, like all the seven seasons of the series, was an interesting and worthwhile one, with some real winners but also a small cluster of misfires. Which is true of the series overall too, expectations were high due to hearing so many great things about it and considering that Hitchcock is one of my favourites.

"Don't Come Back Alive" could have been a good deal better than it was, considering the great title. It is to me not one quite of the worst episodes of the series, but it is in my view a lesser entry of Season 1. It is an improvement over "Triggers in Leash", but is nowhere near on the same level as "Revenge" and "Premonition". "Don't Come Back Alive" does have its good things and just about worth a one time watch, but is let down by the story being rather all over the map.

Starting with the good things, "Don't Come Back Alive" is slickly and atmospherically shot with some suitably eerie lighting that suits the type of story very well. The music has an ominous vibe and the choice to have Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" as the series' theme tune continues to be a stroke of genius. Hitchcock's bookending is intriguing, this aspect did vary throughout the series' run but it works very well in this episode.

Furthermore, Sidney Blackmer plays his role with intense conflicted edge. Virginia Gregg makes much of little and their chemistry is good. The twist ending wasn't too predictable and was nicely executed.

Which unfortunately cannot be said for most of what came before it. On the whole, the story felt too rushed and comes over as choppy as a result, over-stuffed and the crammed sprawling structure made coherence not a strong suit. Some serious suspension of disbelief is needed, as quite a lot of the story is utter nonsense and this is an episode that really would have benefitted from a much longer length, all of this being the complete opposite of the narratively thin "Triggers in Leash".

Moreover, the script could have had more verve and too often sounds awkward, it fares best in the bookending. While there is a little bit of suspense later, most of the time that aspect was lacking due to being distracted by the far-fetched-ness and the jumping about. Robert Emhardt for my tastes was too smug in his role and came over as annoying.

Overall, watchable but this could have been a lot better. 5/10.