Finally, we get to the bottom of who killed Count Victor Mattoni (Anthony Dawson). Or do we? As if we didn't have enough suspects who have all confessed, three at this point, one more now enters the fray when Lord Sorrington's (Alan Napier) daughter (Rosemary Harris) shows up with what might be the most convincing evidence when she confesses to the murder too! She's the only one of the suspects who shows signs of a struggle with the victim, as none of the others have scratches or bruises that would point to a confrontation. All of their prior stories point to an accidental shooting while struggling with Mattoni over a loaded gun. It's a pretty certain conclusion that Ms. Rogers was the guilty party when among the three original suspects talk among themselves, one of them states - "If none of us did it, who did?" The episode concludes with Inspector Davidson (John Williams) still in a quandary, but if you go with the statements made by the characters in this one, there can be no other outcome.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents (TV Series)
I Killed the Count: Part 3 (1957)
User Reviews
Review this title5 Reviews
Now, we have a fourth!
planktonrules24 February 2021
"I Killed the Count" is the only multipart story from "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and it consists of three parts! This makes the story like a movie cut into thirds.
Unfortunately, unless you are a completist who insists on seeing every episode, you might want to skip them...as the payoff isn't great.
In part three, we have yet a fourth person who has claimed to the Inspector that they killed Mattoni. His inclination is to simply arrest them all, though his assistant points out that legally you cannot separately charge more than one person for the same murder. The four obviously are working together and there is a mention of drawing cards to see who actually killed him, though you never learn nor does the Inspector learn who killed the man.
Overall, this is much like the Agatha Christie novel "Murder on the Orient Express" but with only one murderer...though they all seemed to have ample reasons to want the man dead. It's a mildly interesting story but the story itself is also drug out too long and is rather talky. Two episodes instead of one would have tightened it up and made for a better tale. Worth seeing...but hardly necessary as well.
In part three, we have yet a fourth person who has claimed to the Inspector that they killed Mattoni. His inclination is to simply arrest them all, though his assistant points out that legally you cannot separately charge more than one person for the same murder. The four obviously are working together and there is a mention of drawing cards to see who actually killed him, though you never learn nor does the Inspector learn who killed the man.
Overall, this is much like the Agatha Christie novel "Murder on the Orient Express" but with only one murderer...though they all seemed to have ample reasons to want the man dead. It's a mildly interesting story but the story itself is also drug out too long and is rather talky. Two episodes instead of one would have tightened it up and made for a better tale. Worth seeing...but hardly necessary as well.
Murder on the Count Mattoni Express
Hitchcoc16 June 2013
OK. Let's throw in another murderer. The count really got around. Not only did he live a lavish lifestyle and command great wealth, he managed to really tick off a lot of people. Now Rosemary Harris comes in. She is one of those actresses that later played confused middle aged women. She was perfect for the suffering wife of a rich husband who had gambled in the stock market and lost. Here, she is young and attractive and has a stake in this whole Count Mattoni murder. I'm not sure whether this episode or Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express came first, but it certainly they are cast from the same form. I would imagine that most of the viewers in 1957 embraced the verisimilitude of the legal process in England. I won't spoil the ending, but the result seems very suspect to me.
I did it! I did It! I'm the Murderer!
sol121828 March 2013
****SPOILERS**** "The Master" Alfred Hitchcock really pulled a rabbit out of his hat in this episode, the third in the series, of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" as he presents us with a murder that not one two or even three but four people eagerly confessed to. It'as the murder of that sleazy low life of a playboy Italian Count Victor Mattoni, Anthony Dawson, whom everyone including the police Inspector Davidson, John Williams, on his murder case felt that he so well deserved and earned for himself. It's the fact that four persons including the late Count Mattoni's wife Countess Helen, Rosemary Harris, want to take credit for the Count's murder that makes this case so puzzling!
It's Inspector Davidson's assistant Det. Raines, Charles Davis, who comes up with a clue to why these four admitted murderers are so willing to take the rap in the Count's murder. And it turns out to be a fool proof way to keep the actual killer of Count Mattoni from facing justice and paying for his or her crime! A crime that everyone feels was fully justified.
***SPOILERS*** Like the saying four into one don't go the fact that four persons admitted to a murder that only one actually committed short circuited the courts from prosecuting the actual murderer. But fear not "The Master" Alfred Hitchcock came up with a answer, like he always does, in how this baffling murder case was finally solved and those responsible paying for it in the final few minutes of the program. An answer that was far more bizarre and confusing then the murder and the cover up of it was.
It's Inspector Davidson's assistant Det. Raines, Charles Davis, who comes up with a clue to why these four admitted murderers are so willing to take the rap in the Count's murder. And it turns out to be a fool proof way to keep the actual killer of Count Mattoni from facing justice and paying for his or her crime! A crime that everyone feels was fully justified.
***SPOILERS*** Like the saying four into one don't go the fact that four persons admitted to a murder that only one actually committed short circuited the courts from prosecuting the actual murderer. But fear not "The Master" Alfred Hitchcock came up with a answer, like he always does, in how this baffling murder case was finally solved and those responsible paying for it in the final few minutes of the program. An answer that was far more bizarre and confusing then the murder and the cover up of it was.
The end
TheLittleSongbird6 July 2022
There is a lot to admire about the whole "I Killed the Count" three parter, and while they aren't perfect and fall short of excellence the previous two parts were very solidly done on the whole. Was really looking forward to seeing how such an intricate case would conclude, so there was absolutely no doubt about seeing "I Killed the Count Part 3" back to back with the previous two parts. While Season 2 of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' was very uneven, a large number of episodes were still worth watching.
All three parts of "I Killed the Count" fit that distinction. Will admit though to feeling a little disappointed by Part 3, especially after following on from the amount of promise and intrigue the previous two parts showed. That does not mean at all that "I Killed the Count Part 3" is bad, it absolutely isn't and has a lot of what was so impressive before. There was just too much of a feeling of one episode too many and for an episode that is a conclusion to a three parter it could have been better.
"I Killed the Count Part 3" does have a lot of things that are good. It is shot slickly and atmospherically and while Robert Stevens' direction is not the most inspired it is efficient enough. Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" is a terrific choice for the series' theme tune. Once again, the episode is very well acted with John Williams having lost none of his exuberance or authority.
Enough of the script thought provokes and there is enough intrigue in the story to make one keep watching, mainly to see though how the three parter would conclude. Hitchcock's bookending amuses.
However, the story and pacing are flawed here. They were in the previous two parts too (though for the opposite reasons to here), but not to this extent. As said there is too much of a one part too many feel in this instalment that dragged too often from having too little material this time, with all the interesting stuff happening in the previous two parts. Did say previously that some of Part 2 could easily have happened in this part, which would have tightened the story and given more depth to the things glossed over a bit.
Did think too that "I Killed the Count Part 3" is rather too talk heavy, to the extent that the over-explained analysing from Part 1 felt like a distant memory. Was very underwhelmed by the ending, which is much more complicated than it needed to be (we are as baffled as Davidson) and felt like it was trying to wrap things up quickly with too little time to do so.
Concluding, decent and above average but doesn't live up to full potential. 6/10.
All three parts of "I Killed the Count" fit that distinction. Will admit though to feeling a little disappointed by Part 3, especially after following on from the amount of promise and intrigue the previous two parts showed. That does not mean at all that "I Killed the Count Part 3" is bad, it absolutely isn't and has a lot of what was so impressive before. There was just too much of a feeling of one episode too many and for an episode that is a conclusion to a three parter it could have been better.
"I Killed the Count Part 3" does have a lot of things that are good. It is shot slickly and atmospherically and while Robert Stevens' direction is not the most inspired it is efficient enough. Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" is a terrific choice for the series' theme tune. Once again, the episode is very well acted with John Williams having lost none of his exuberance or authority.
Enough of the script thought provokes and there is enough intrigue in the story to make one keep watching, mainly to see though how the three parter would conclude. Hitchcock's bookending amuses.
However, the story and pacing are flawed here. They were in the previous two parts too (though for the opposite reasons to here), but not to this extent. As said there is too much of a one part too many feel in this instalment that dragged too often from having too little material this time, with all the interesting stuff happening in the previous two parts. Did say previously that some of Part 2 could easily have happened in this part, which would have tightened the story and given more depth to the things glossed over a bit.
Did think too that "I Killed the Count Part 3" is rather too talk heavy, to the extent that the over-explained analysing from Part 1 felt like a distant memory. Was very underwhelmed by the ending, which is much more complicated than it needed to be (we are as baffled as Davidson) and felt like it was trying to wrap things up quickly with too little time to do so.
Concluding, decent and above average but doesn't live up to full potential. 6/10.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
