Oscar Homolka, who played one of the most despicable villains in Hitchcock's canon (the movie Sabotage where he is responsible for the deliberate killing of poor unsuspecting child), plays the ugly, bent over, self-centered husband of a poor woman who uses every waking hour to make his life better. He offers her nothing in return but more of the same. One day the brute finds a wallet containing 5200 dollars. I figure this is like finding nearly 50,000 dollars in 2013. It is a fortune. Of course, what ensues is the conflict of doing what is right or doing something to make their lives better. The wife has some modest wishes, but Homolka browbeats her into submitting to his wishes, that is for him to have total control over the money. To complicate matters they find an ad from the wallet's owner in the newspaper. He lies to her and says that he has seen the man and has been given nothing more than a thank-you. Eventually, she sees him counting the money and knows he is a liar. Now she has an epiphany while sitting in the dump he has provided for her (it reminded me of the buildings in Renoir's "Lower Depths."). She decides to start spending what she see as rightfully half hers. This is the set up for a great conclusion. This is one of my top five best in this series.
10 Reviews
Very rewarding
TheLittleSongbird7 September 2022
Neither Oskar Homolka (in his first of three appearances of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents') or Jo Van Fleet are strangers to Alfred Hitchcock. With Homolka having already given a subtly creepy performance in 'Sabotage' and Van Fleet having already done an episode of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' ("Shopping for Death", personally didn't care for that episode or for Van Fleet's performance despite liking her a lot as an actress). Neither is director James Neilson in his seventh of twelve episodes for the series.
"Reward to Finder" sees Season 3 and 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' back on form after the disappointing "Silent Witness" in an excellent episode that is one of the best of the season. Of Neilson's episodes for the series, "Reward to Finder" is one of his very best, it is a great representation of Homolka in a different kind of role to 'Sabotage'. And a much better representation of Van Fleet than "Shopping for Death" in a role that played to her strengths much more.
My only issue with "Reward to Finder" is that the ending is not a surprise really at all, actually thought it was telegraphed too early which took away a little from the suspense.
Homolka however is excellent, his performance is every bit as unsettling as it was in 'Sabotage' even though not as subtle and actually much nastier which actually makes him even more unsettling. Van Fleet is sympathetic and moving as a much more interesting character than the one she has in "Shopping for Death", one that comes over as a real person and not a caricature and a rootable one at that.
Their chemistry absolutely blisters and has real nail biting intensity and emotional power, psychologically too it fascinates. Neilson's direction never tries to do too much while keeping the drama tight and not letting the suspense levels drop.
Absolutely loved the storytelling, which is a very powerful and darkly tense one and is uncompromising in its approach to a sensitive subject while also movingly tragic. Which is what makes "Reward to Finder" so scary. The writing is compact and not talk heavy or melodramatic and has grit, with some occasional darkly funny moments that don't jar. The production values are slick and atmospheric enough and Hitchcock's bookending is suitably droll. Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" is a great choice for the theme music.
In conclusion, excellent. 9/10.
"Reward to Finder" sees Season 3 and 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' back on form after the disappointing "Silent Witness" in an excellent episode that is one of the best of the season. Of Neilson's episodes for the series, "Reward to Finder" is one of his very best, it is a great representation of Homolka in a different kind of role to 'Sabotage'. And a much better representation of Van Fleet than "Shopping for Death" in a role that played to her strengths much more.
My only issue with "Reward to Finder" is that the ending is not a surprise really at all, actually thought it was telegraphed too early which took away a little from the suspense.
Homolka however is excellent, his performance is every bit as unsettling as it was in 'Sabotage' even though not as subtle and actually much nastier which actually makes him even more unsettling. Van Fleet is sympathetic and moving as a much more interesting character than the one she has in "Shopping for Death", one that comes over as a real person and not a caricature and a rootable one at that.
Their chemistry absolutely blisters and has real nail biting intensity and emotional power, psychologically too it fascinates. Neilson's direction never tries to do too much while keeping the drama tight and not letting the suspense levels drop.
Absolutely loved the storytelling, which is a very powerful and darkly tense one and is uncompromising in its approach to a sensitive subject while also movingly tragic. Which is what makes "Reward to Finder" so scary. The writing is compact and not talk heavy or melodramatic and has grit, with some occasional darkly funny moments that don't jar. The production values are slick and atmospheric enough and Hitchcock's bookending is suitably droll. Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" is a great choice for the theme music.
In conclusion, excellent. 9/10.
Like 1998's A Simple Plan
iluvtv-988433 September 2021
A Kind Of Seedy Grandeur
telegonus15 August 2017
Reward To Finder is as grand and nasty a Hitchcock half-hour as one is likely to see, and it's set in the streets and shabby rent apartments of lower depths of an American city. It's main character is a junk man who happens upon a wallet containing $5200 on the street. It's good for younger viewers to keep in mind just how much the money the man found would be worth in today's dollars. I'd say over 50K, maybe more. It's a small fortune.
Alas, he's a cheap, mean spirited sort, and he treats his wife badly; and he's secretive and shifty in the bargain. His wife is marginally a better human being, but such niceties as good and bad scarcely figure in the story. Or rather, they're there if one wants to look at it as a moral tale but one can interpret any number of ways, such as a slice of life. It plays rather like a cross between Maxim Gorky and O. Henry, and it feels somewhat European because its central character is European.
There's an underlying sophistication in this episode, which, more than most Hitchcock entries, or most anything on television from the era in which it was made, roughly the middle of the 20th century, is unique in not taking sides, or even in suggesting that "sides" matter. Yes, the issue of whether to return the money to its rightful owner does arise; and yet it's also strongly implied that this has more to due with the fear (of the law) and greed of its two central characters, rather than either of them having anything resembling a moral conscience.
The ending is, for the perceptive viewer, rather telegraphed, and yet this poses little bother to those of us who, once in a awhile anyway, like our drama down and dirty rather than elegant and refined. There is zero elegance in this entry of a TV series that often dealt with, as we nowadays like to say, upscale people. The characters presented in it are as close to down and out as people can be without literally living on the street. In the leading roles, Oscar Homolka and Jo Van Fleet are beyond praise.
That for its entire length that the episode accepted as axiomatic that life is cruel and unfair, that some people are incapable of success, made me want to applaud,--its author, director and producer--not due to any misanthropy on my part but rather the scarcity of truth on television, ever, now or sixty years ago; and the boldness with which the utter despair with which so many of us must cope on a daily basis was presented, with a kind of seedy grandeur.
Alas, he's a cheap, mean spirited sort, and he treats his wife badly; and he's secretive and shifty in the bargain. His wife is marginally a better human being, but such niceties as good and bad scarcely figure in the story. Or rather, they're there if one wants to look at it as a moral tale but one can interpret any number of ways, such as a slice of life. It plays rather like a cross between Maxim Gorky and O. Henry, and it feels somewhat European because its central character is European.
There's an underlying sophistication in this episode, which, more than most Hitchcock entries, or most anything on television from the era in which it was made, roughly the middle of the 20th century, is unique in not taking sides, or even in suggesting that "sides" matter. Yes, the issue of whether to return the money to its rightful owner does arise; and yet it's also strongly implied that this has more to due with the fear (of the law) and greed of its two central characters, rather than either of them having anything resembling a moral conscience.
The ending is, for the perceptive viewer, rather telegraphed, and yet this poses little bother to those of us who, once in a awhile anyway, like our drama down and dirty rather than elegant and refined. There is zero elegance in this entry of a TV series that often dealt with, as we nowadays like to say, upscale people. The characters presented in it are as close to down and out as people can be without literally living on the street. In the leading roles, Oscar Homolka and Jo Van Fleet are beyond praise.
That for its entire length that the episode accepted as axiomatic that life is cruel and unfair, that some people are incapable of success, made me want to applaud,--its author, director and producer--not due to any misanthropy on my part but rather the scarcity of truth on television, ever, now or sixty years ago; and the boldness with which the utter despair with which so many of us must cope on a daily basis was presented, with a kind of seedy grandeur.
They ain't exactly Ozzie and Harriet!
planktonrules8 March 2021
"Reward to Finder" is one of the best episodes I've seen so far of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" and I think it's because it really explores the ugliness of human nature...and doesn't hold back on bit!
Carl (Oskar Homolka) has found a wallet filled with $5200 in cash. His wife (Jo Van Fleet) wants him to keep it, though he talks about turning it in to the police. But he doesn't and a few days pass...and they see a lost wallet ad in the classified section of the newspaper. The wallet's owner clearly is asking for the money back and the wallet's description matches the one Carl found. So, he leaves to return the wallet to the owner and later tells his wife there was no reward..none. But he's lying....and what's next is very darkly funny.
The episode does what few others do...it doesn't hold back and there is no meaningless crime doesn't pay epilogue at the end (which occurs way too often in this series). Instead, it's ugly, dark and kind of funny...and well worth seeing.
By the way, if you like this sort of nastiness, try the movie "Too Late for Tears". It's about a couple who find a suitcase filled with money...and greed and ugliness prevails!
Carl (Oskar Homolka) has found a wallet filled with $5200 in cash. His wife (Jo Van Fleet) wants him to keep it, though he talks about turning it in to the police. But he doesn't and a few days pass...and they see a lost wallet ad in the classified section of the newspaper. The wallet's owner clearly is asking for the money back and the wallet's description matches the one Carl found. So, he leaves to return the wallet to the owner and later tells his wife there was no reward..none. But he's lying....and what's next is very darkly funny.
The episode does what few others do...it doesn't hold back and there is no meaningless crime doesn't pay epilogue at the end (which occurs way too often in this series). Instead, it's ugly, dark and kind of funny...and well worth seeing.
By the way, if you like this sort of nastiness, try the movie "Too Late for Tears". It's about a couple who find a suitcase filled with money...and greed and ugliness prevails!
Excellent rendering of a tragic, abusive marriage
El Cine3 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
(this includes discussion not of the ending but of some scenes in the show's second half)
Reward to Finder's suspense plot is a good one, reminiscent of a tale by a certain medieval English poet. And what makes the episode stand out even more is the writing and acting of the main characters. It makes for a devastating drama that you might not expect from "suspense television". But AHP often pulls off wonders.
Oskar Homolka (whom Hitchcock fans will remember as the loser Mr. Verloc who repeatedly carries out the title act in "Sabotage") plays Carl Kaminsky, an immigrant janitor who collects bottles, newspapers and other trash in his apartment's attic to sell later and make his income less meager. Though Verloc was rather creepy, Carl is far from Verloc territory here -- loud, touchy and bitter rather than mild-mannered and cowardly.
Jo Van Fleet, last seen on AHP in an out-of-control performance in Season 1's ludicrous "Shopping for Death", plays Carl's wife Anna. As with her previous character, Van Fleet is a working-class drudge, but instead of ranting on, Van Fleet now gives a more sensitive portrayal of a sympathetic, put-upon woman.
The Kaminsky marriage is tragic (in the drama sense of the word) and abusive with emotional rather than physical abuse. Carl avoids beating his wife, but you may worry if he will at some point. Even at the beginning, when the two's interaction is at its most routine and normal, he is harsh, mocking, demanding, and unforthcoming to her questions. The environment does not feel healthy.
The marriage is further strained by the characters' desires and deceptions about some lost money they find. Anna, initially assuming that they will virtuously return the money, is soon indulging in her dreams for a prettier, more middle-class domestic life, sprucing up the apartment and her wardrobe. At first she emphasizes her frugality only 59 cents for this bottle of hand cream and we sense the clumsy attempt to assuage Carl about her purchases. Like the hand cream, her purchase of a manicure kit is symbolic of her wishes, since she claims her housework has coarsened her once-prized hands.
This leads to wrenching confrontations partway through. Carl gets fed up with Anna's purchases, and when she happily sticks her lotioned hand out at him, he slaps it down. This introduces physical aggression, and disturbs Anna. In the next scene, she has gone on to purchase a fur coat (partly motivated by revenge?). When Carl screams at her over this, she does the same to him. He threatens to sock her, she calls his bluff and scorns the idea of him ever hitting her "real hard like this!" and she herself slaps him in the face. Watch her own face, which now bears a pathetic frown that seems to convey both anger and sadness.
Carl is upset, but doesn't hit her back after all this abuse and, perversely, this almost makes him sympathetic to us. He may berate and shout at Anna all the time, but at least he hasn't, and won't, beat her, aside from that slap of her hand. But we wonder if it will remain this way, especially after he insults her appearance and damages some of the stuff she bought.
I won't discuss the ending here, but I'll part with the unrelated advice to keep an eye (pun unintended) on Homolka's final shot the fiendish look in his eyes is outright scary.
Reward to Finder's suspense plot is a good one, reminiscent of a tale by a certain medieval English poet. And what makes the episode stand out even more is the writing and acting of the main characters. It makes for a devastating drama that you might not expect from "suspense television". But AHP often pulls off wonders.
Oskar Homolka (whom Hitchcock fans will remember as the loser Mr. Verloc who repeatedly carries out the title act in "Sabotage") plays Carl Kaminsky, an immigrant janitor who collects bottles, newspapers and other trash in his apartment's attic to sell later and make his income less meager. Though Verloc was rather creepy, Carl is far from Verloc territory here -- loud, touchy and bitter rather than mild-mannered and cowardly.
Jo Van Fleet, last seen on AHP in an out-of-control performance in Season 1's ludicrous "Shopping for Death", plays Carl's wife Anna. As with her previous character, Van Fleet is a working-class drudge, but instead of ranting on, Van Fleet now gives a more sensitive portrayal of a sympathetic, put-upon woman.
The Kaminsky marriage is tragic (in the drama sense of the word) and abusive with emotional rather than physical abuse. Carl avoids beating his wife, but you may worry if he will at some point. Even at the beginning, when the two's interaction is at its most routine and normal, he is harsh, mocking, demanding, and unforthcoming to her questions. The environment does not feel healthy.
The marriage is further strained by the characters' desires and deceptions about some lost money they find. Anna, initially assuming that they will virtuously return the money, is soon indulging in her dreams for a prettier, more middle-class domestic life, sprucing up the apartment and her wardrobe. At first she emphasizes her frugality only 59 cents for this bottle of hand cream and we sense the clumsy attempt to assuage Carl about her purchases. Like the hand cream, her purchase of a manicure kit is symbolic of her wishes, since she claims her housework has coarsened her once-prized hands.
This leads to wrenching confrontations partway through. Carl gets fed up with Anna's purchases, and when she happily sticks her lotioned hand out at him, he slaps it down. This introduces physical aggression, and disturbs Anna. In the next scene, she has gone on to purchase a fur coat (partly motivated by revenge?). When Carl screams at her over this, she does the same to him. He threatens to sock her, she calls his bluff and scorns the idea of him ever hitting her "real hard like this!" and she herself slaps him in the face. Watch her own face, which now bears a pathetic frown that seems to convey both anger and sadness.
Carl is upset, but doesn't hit her back after all this abuse and, perversely, this almost makes him sympathetic to us. He may berate and shout at Anna all the time, but at least he hasn't, and won't, beat her, aside from that slap of her hand. But we wonder if it will remain this way, especially after he insults her appearance and damages some of the stuff she bought.
I won't discuss the ending here, but I'll part with the unrelated advice to keep an eye (pun unintended) on Homolka's final shot the fiendish look in his eyes is outright scary.
"You sure make a good cup of coffee."
classicsoncall4 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Didn't you want to just reach through the TV screen and put the choke on Carl Gaminsky (Oskar Homolka)? Man, what an absolutely hideous person, consistently berating his wife (Jo Van Fleet) and demanding his supper as soon as he walks through the door. I don't know how she put up with it for all those years before we even get to this story. Anyway, the brute finds a wallet with fifty two hundred dollars in it, and even though he shares the news with his wife Anna, he's not going to do the right thing by reporting it to the police. You know, I had to think about that sum of money for the mid 1950's. It would just about cover the cost of half an average house, and here someone was walking around with that much money in his pocket. But I digress.
Well, as long as Carl is going to keep the money, Anna feels it's only right she gets her fair share (sound familiar?), and goes on a buying spree. For his part, Carl liked the idea of having the money rather than spending it on anything that would have made his life a little easier, and goes to an extreme measure to insure that he can keep it all for himself. He probably wouldn't have been able to return that twenty two dollar stature for a refund though, not with all that blood all over it. I wonder if that coffee was Maxwell House, and if it was good to the last drop.
Well, as long as Carl is going to keep the money, Anna feels it's only right she gets her fair share (sound familiar?), and goes on a buying spree. For his part, Carl liked the idea of having the money rather than spending it on anything that would have made his life a little easier, and goes to an extreme measure to insure that he can keep it all for himself. He probably wouldn't have been able to return that twenty two dollar stature for a refund though, not with all that blood all over it. I wonder if that coffee was Maxwell House, and if it was good to the last drop.
JUST ONE TEASPOON PER CUP!
tcchelsey29 March 2024
You have to love the opening bit with Hitchcock plucking dollar bills off a tree!
Very true, a story about human nature at its very worst, and one delicious slice of dark comedy.
The superb casting of two genuinely gifted actors, Oscar Homolka and Jo Van Fleet, put this over the top. They play a relatively poor couple (who look like they live in a barn!) whose life suddenly changes.
Homolka (as Carl) just happens to pick up a lost wallet containing over five thousand dollars --over 50,000 dollars today.
In short, he has special plans for it and his wife (Anna) has special plans for it. The proverbial question is who wins the Hitchcock challenge?
The other question, which I have asked for years... who designed their home? The utterly depressing apartment is, perhaps, Hitchcock's biggest laugh of all. Also, with all the yelling, you'd think neighbors would have heard their whole sordid story to begin with! You be the judge.
Good support from Claude Akins as a cop. Interestingly, this episode was not written by one of the series writers, rather Frank Gabrielson, who was the long time writer for MAMA in the 50s. He wrote one other episode for the show.
Watching Homolka and Van Fleet play off each other is absolutely amazing. A gem. From SEASON 3 EPISODE 6 remastered Universal dvd box set. 2007 release.
Very true, a story about human nature at its very worst, and one delicious slice of dark comedy.
The superb casting of two genuinely gifted actors, Oscar Homolka and Jo Van Fleet, put this over the top. They play a relatively poor couple (who look like they live in a barn!) whose life suddenly changes.
Homolka (as Carl) just happens to pick up a lost wallet containing over five thousand dollars --over 50,000 dollars today.
In short, he has special plans for it and his wife (Anna) has special plans for it. The proverbial question is who wins the Hitchcock challenge?
The other question, which I have asked for years... who designed their home? The utterly depressing apartment is, perhaps, Hitchcock's biggest laugh of all. Also, with all the yelling, you'd think neighbors would have heard their whole sordid story to begin with! You be the judge.
Good support from Claude Akins as a cop. Interestingly, this episode was not written by one of the series writers, rather Frank Gabrielson, who was the long time writer for MAMA in the 50s. He wrote one other episode for the show.
Watching Homolka and Van Fleet play off each other is absolutely amazing. A gem. From SEASON 3 EPISODE 6 remastered Universal dvd box set. 2007 release.
She makes a really good cup of coffee
sol-kay30 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
****SPOILERS*** Living in squalor and cheap beyond belief The Kaminsky's Carl & Anna, Oskar Homolka & Jo Van Fleet, never expected to find what they or better yet Carl did lying in the gutter one evening when he was out looking for empty bottles for their two cent deposit and used newspapers to stuff his shoes in order to insulate his feet from the cold: A wallet with 52 $100 dollars bills with no identification in it. It's Anna who want's to spend some of the money on herself and Carl in an attempt to placate his spree spending wife appeals to her morality in telling Anna that the money may belong to someone who in fact needs it and to return the cash to its rightful owners.
Later claiming that he found an article in the newspapers about someone losing $5,200.00 in the vicinity where he found it Carl rushes over to the person in question and returns him his money. But the big rub in all this is that he got zilch-zero-in reward money for doing his good deed for the day.
It soon becomes apparent to Anna that Carl did no such thing in returning the lost cash but in fact kept it all to himself. Finding the money hidden in the floorboard of their apartment Anna went on a spending spree without her husband's knowledge spending almost half of the money that she found. Now comes the showdown between the two with both planning to do each other in without realizing the consequences of their actions: Life or the electric chair if caught which, in how ridicules they are, is a given.
****SPOILERS**** In the end both Carl and Anna never got a chance to enjoy the fruits of their labors in spending the pot of gold that they had between them. But they did in fact get second prize in trying to do each other in. That's with Carl losing his cool and bashing Anna's skull in and Anna in return serving up for Carl a cup of her deliciously brewed coffee that's so good that her husband Carl would gladly die in him having just a sip of it.
Later claiming that he found an article in the newspapers about someone losing $5,200.00 in the vicinity where he found it Carl rushes over to the person in question and returns him his money. But the big rub in all this is that he got zilch-zero-in reward money for doing his good deed for the day.
It soon becomes apparent to Anna that Carl did no such thing in returning the lost cash but in fact kept it all to himself. Finding the money hidden in the floorboard of their apartment Anna went on a spending spree without her husband's knowledge spending almost half of the money that she found. Now comes the showdown between the two with both planning to do each other in without realizing the consequences of their actions: Life or the electric chair if caught which, in how ridicules they are, is a given.
****SPOILERS**** In the end both Carl and Anna never got a chance to enjoy the fruits of their labors in spending the pot of gold that they had between them. But they did in fact get second prize in trying to do each other in. That's with Carl losing his cool and bashing Anna's skull in and Anna in return serving up for Carl a cup of her deliciously brewed coffee that's so good that her husband Carl would gladly die in him having just a sip of it.
Notes From The Underground.
rmax30482322 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The set dressing is by James Redd and he ought to be spanked. Many of these stories take place in shabby settings, among the desperately poor, but there's hardly any excuse for this apartment. It looks a hole some archaeologist excavated out of a garbage dump. Of course we all feel pity for poor Jo Van Fleet, verbally and emotionally abused by the ugliest, slouching, bitterest, ill-garbed husband any woman has ever had, except my ex wife. My God, Oskar Homolka is a fright in every sense of the word.
But -- really -- couldn't Van Fleet have at least TIDIED UP that shack once in a while? But no. She seems to lie around all day bemoaning the shape of her once lovely hands. She only seems to stir when the brutish Homolka slams through the door without a greeting and shouts, "Get me my supper." It's what we marriage counselors refer to as a marriage that's unsatisfactory but stable, rather like a dominance hierarchy among a pack of wolves or a pecking order in the chicken yard.
But when money comes in the door, marriage flies innuendo, as a great philosopher once observed. Homolka finds a wallet in the gutter. No name, no address, just $5200 in cash, which was a lot of moolah in 1957.
Homolka and Van Fleet now run into the most improbable of ethical questions. Should they keep the money or obey the categorical imperative and try to return it intact to the owner? They can advertise in the papers. They can turn it over to the police who will hold it in Lost and Found for thirty days before giving it back to them. (What is this, a comedy?) In any case they're sure to get a juicy reward.
The treacherous Homolka tells his wife that he found the owner but got only a puny reward. Actually, he locks himself in a storage room -- the whole dump looks like a storage room -- and she peeks through the keyhole and sees him counting out hundred dollar bills. Why -- she can't believe her eyes! He kept the money HIMSELF! Immanent justice prevails.
This is a pretty depressing episode. In Hitchcock's movies we had a tourist's view of the world. We could see the harbor at Monte Carlo from the balcony of some hoity toity hotel. But this series seems to take us too often into the mental and material underworld of the disenfranchised. Some of us have already been there.
But -- really -- couldn't Van Fleet have at least TIDIED UP that shack once in a while? But no. She seems to lie around all day bemoaning the shape of her once lovely hands. She only seems to stir when the brutish Homolka slams through the door without a greeting and shouts, "Get me my supper." It's what we marriage counselors refer to as a marriage that's unsatisfactory but stable, rather like a dominance hierarchy among a pack of wolves or a pecking order in the chicken yard.
But when money comes in the door, marriage flies innuendo, as a great philosopher once observed. Homolka finds a wallet in the gutter. No name, no address, just $5200 in cash, which was a lot of moolah in 1957.
Homolka and Van Fleet now run into the most improbable of ethical questions. Should they keep the money or obey the categorical imperative and try to return it intact to the owner? They can advertise in the papers. They can turn it over to the police who will hold it in Lost and Found for thirty days before giving it back to them. (What is this, a comedy?) In any case they're sure to get a juicy reward.
The treacherous Homolka tells his wife that he found the owner but got only a puny reward. Actually, he locks himself in a storage room -- the whole dump looks like a storage room -- and she peeks through the keyhole and sees him counting out hundred dollar bills. Why -- she can't believe her eyes! He kept the money HIMSELF! Immanent justice prevails.
This is a pretty depressing episode. In Hitchcock's movies we had a tourist's view of the world. We could see the harbor at Monte Carlo from the balcony of some hoity toity hotel. But this series seems to take us too often into the mental and material underworld of the disenfranchised. Some of us have already been there.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
