User Reviews

The story here isn't so bad, one of three crooks was double-crossed by the other two who wanted the loot for themselves, but the first hid it on them, and served ten years. Now he's out of jail, and all three want their share of the money.

However, why in the world would the first guy, who just served ten years, go back to the two who double-crossed him, and for help in getting the money? There is a second huge plot hole which is directly connected to the ending so I won't give it away, but it also doesn't make sense.

One can contribute these things to the fact that the crook who served the time really isn't that smart, but he was indeed smart enough to hide the money from the other two in the first place, figuring they'd double-cross him ten years ago, so that reasoning cuts no ice.

Still, it's a decent episode, and makes you interested enough to sit through it to the end to find out what happens, despite the glaring plot holes.

More a straight melodrama than creepy Hitchcock fare. Still, the entry does generate some suspense, and from a fine cast of Brodie, Hagen, and Hill. Seems the three stole 100 grand, but instead of splitting it as planned, the cagey Hill hid the money, while the devious Brodie tipped off the cops. As a result, Hill spent 10 years in the pokey, while Brodie and Hagen wait to find out where the loot is. Nothing has worked out the way they planned, including Brodie's double-cross. In the meantime, an opportunistic Hagen has transferred her affections from the jailed Hill to the treacherous Brodie. What a threesome! Now Hill's out of jail and needs help in getting the loot from a mineshaft deep in the desert. Unwisely, he turns to Brodie and Hagen. Of course, nobody can be trusted as they head off together into the desert and the 100 grand, at the same time, we wonder what will happen. With these unholy characters, anything is possible

All in all, it's a rather grim entry—just count the smiles. Hill is excellent as the sullen patsy, while Hagen looks like a gal who's seen better days. Not many of these early half-hours featured outdoor locations; however this one does. And for a series entry, the camera shots from the mineshaft bottom are especially well done. Nothing special here, just a good engrossing tale of greed and treachery, with a strong ironical ending.

Joel Murcott wrote this fascinating episode, a popular writer for Hitch, later to do many cop shows, including BARNABY JONES.

The acting puts this one over the top, starring pre-MISSION IMPOSSIBLE lead Steven Hill as a bitter guy who gets out of prison -- ready to get even with his double crossers. Jean Hagen, best remembered as the "first" mom on the DANNY THOMAS SHOW, is quite good, playing Hill's old gal pal. Stashed loot is the key here, and Hill gets his girlfriend and another old frenemy (played by Steve Brodie) to help him. Hang on tight.

OF COURSE... knowing Hitchcock there's going to be some complications, and what if the money is in the middle of the desert, down a deep, deep well? Amazing.

This is an intriguing early episode that will keep your attention. Joel Murcott did his job. Also some great on location desert locations for a change of pace, adding to the authenticity.

Versatile character actor Steve Brodie is always at his best, either playing good guys or dirty rats. He made his film debut in the WWII classic THIRTY SECONDS OVER TOKYO, cast in many westerns.

From SEASON 3 EPISODE 7 remastered/Universal. 5 dvd set. 17 hrs. 2007 release.

Paul Henreid directed three 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' episodes prior to "Enough Rope for Two". They being "Vicious Circle", "A Little Sleep" and "Silent Witness", of those three only "A Little Sleep" was good to me. This is through no fault of Henreid, the other two just didn't have particularly good stories. Orher than Henreid directing, the other interest points were seeing a much younger Steven Hill and Jean Hagen as a character very different to the one she plays in 'Singin in the Rain'.

"Enough Rope for Two" could have been much better, the premise was one that could have gone either way because the set up sounded intriguing but even reading the synopsis gave me a strong inkling that the episode could be potentially implausible. Which it sadly was. "Enough Rope for Two" is a long way from being one of the worst 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' episodes, but it is one of the weaker ones for me of Season 3, which settled much quicker in quality than the previous two, and one of the small handful of disappointments from the season's mostly very solid first quarter.

There are good things here. The acting is the best aspect, with Hill doing a sterling job in a steely, charismatic performance. Hagen is every bit as good, being both beguiling and unsettling without overdoing it. Steve Brodie brings the right amount of intensity to his role. Absolutely loved the character interaction and chemistry. Hitchcock's bookending is entertainingly droll.

It looks quite good visually, with the mineshaft bottom shots particularly impressing. Gounod's "Funeral March of a Marionette" still delights, there are moments of suspense and the ending is surprisingly ironic and wonderfully so.

Just wish however that the story was better, it is just too implausible with too many loose ends and things left vague which really affected the coherence. Not just the storytelling but also the character motivations, some of which being quite stupid and lacking in logic. A longer length would have helped, which would have meant that things would be more fleshed out.

Not only is the implausibility very strong, the routine-ness is too. There are moments of suspense, but only moments that are too outweighed by the too many senseless and silly ones that distracted so much. Henreid's direction generally is uninspired and the episode would have benefitted from a tighter pace, more surprises and dialogue that had more edge and less over heated melodrama.

Concluding, underwhelming. To be seen for the acting but not an episode to see if wanting to see a good story. 5/10.

I know that this series was pretty lightweight most of the time. So maybe it's not fair to criticize the plots for being just plain stupid. Let's see. The guy gets out of prison. He was betrayed by his buddies and gets 10 years. He alone knows where the money is. Where does he go to enlist some help. Back to the woman who two-timed him and the guy who should have shared the punishment. Again, 10 years of waiting and this is the plan he comes up with. Not only that but he puts himself in a position where they can screw him again. Perhaps he could have waited a few days, enlisted a little help from someone for a few bucks and a phony story. Nope, he takes along a cobra in his pants pocket. There is some suspense involved if you can get past what I just said. Of course, once the money is found, his "friends" are going to kill him and take it. What transpires reminded me just a bit of Von Stroheim's masterpiece, "Greed." Although that great film had substance. The acting here is good. Hitchcock managed to get the cream of TV actors of the time. The story is just too fantastic.