"Alfred Hitchcock Presents" Whodunit (TV Episode 1956) Poster

(TV Series)

(1956)

User Reviews

Review this title
14 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Hitchcock's Funny Side
timothylane-227171 April 2019
Alfred Hitchcock liked a touch of humor in his stories, and sometimes a lot more than that. This is one example, a mystery writer who thinks he should have no trouble figuring out who murdered him given his last day to live over again. In the end he still needs help figuring it out, but also by then no longer really cares. Indeed, he now wonders how he ended up in Heaven -- only to learn that mystery writers always go there. God apparently has interesting tastes.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"But whatever happens, it won't be my fault."
classicsoncall25 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've always felt the old lights out gimmick was a cheap way out for murder mysteries. The Charlie Chan series of films in the Forties used it at least three or four times and if you've seen a story using it more than once it begins to irritate. That's why I felt let down a little with this one because it allowed for no one in particular to be defined as the person who murdered Alexander Penn Arlington (John Williams). With a handful of suspects who might have wanted him out of the picture, Arlington, a mystery writer, is given the opportunity to relive the day of his murder by heaven's recording angel (Alan Napier). But with time running out, and having to answer to a higher authority, he only gets more and more frustrated realizing that at least four other people with good reasons of their own could have done him in. Not to worry though, even though the story ends inconclusively, host Hitchcock gives it away as part of his closing statement. You could probably come up with your own guilty party for different reasons, and you'd be just as likely to be correct.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
They Can't Mess With Time
Hitchcoc15 October 2008
There have been lots of stories of people who are allowed to come back for one more day after their deaths. This one is pretty tame. A mystery writer who has been murdered begs the admitting angel to let him know who killed him. They agree that he will go back to the time before his death and try to figure it out, hence the title. This then gets a bit dull. Like most mystery stories, a group of suspects soon materializes. They all have motives. He is such a pompous ass that they may be doing us a favor. Anyway, we know that when all is said and done there is going to be a bit of disappointment. The acting is OK. It has that real fifties feel to it. As it turns out, most of the suspects would probably have allied themselves with this man if he had just been a bit kinder. It's a decent entry into the canon, but didn't grab me that much.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertaining Mini-Mystery With Some Dry British Humor
Snow Leopard14 March 2006
This entertaining mini-mystery is characterized by its dry British sense of humor, and by the occasional friendly witticisms about the murder mystery genre. John Williams, with his quintessentially British screen persona, was a good choice for the leading role. The script (by two of the show's regular screenwriters) efficiently adapts the original story into the program's format.

Williams plays a recently-deceased mystery writer who bargains with the recording angel, wanting to return to earth to find out who murdered him. The main story is patterned after the classic style of so many popular British-style detective novels, with some lighter touches that fit in with the premise. Williams does a good job of playing the amateur detective, gently parodying the way that such a character might appear in a book.

The main plot is framed by the two scenes in heaven, with Williams and Alan Napier (as the angel). In these scenes, as in the rest of the episode, the humor is understated and ironic, rather than openly funny. The tone is consistent throughout the story, and it works well if you enjoy the style.
30 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Clever and uplifting little Hitchcock gem..
herrick4164 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Other comments covered the plot very well, so I won't repeat what I'm sure has little room for improvement. Yes it's an optimistic outlook on the hereafter imaginative dialogue that drew me in quickly. I also agree that there's a slight lull in the action while we meet the cast of characters from which our mystery writer will learn the guilty one. I like this little gem very much in Hitchcock style very much and was annoyed by the missing spoiler alert on many of these reviews and I wish to unspoil what almost spoiled it for me. When I read that the identity of the killer is not necessarily conclusive, I thought 'Ugh! That's a spoiler that spoils everything for me..' and more than just giving away an answer. But not to worry because they're absolutely mistaken. Yes the culprit most definitely revealed, and the Director in heaven clears up any possible ambiguity. Amen, there is resolution and an answer to whodunnit.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
So Who Dun It?
DKosty1231 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is an amusing twist on the murder mystery. As the story opens a dead mystery writer is at the pearly gates of heaven riding on their own personal cloud. When speaking with the gate keeper he finds out he was murdered. This upsets him beyond words as he wants to know who did it? The gate keeper then arranges for him to go back and relive his last day in order to find out who killed him. When the writer gets back he finds that everyone there has reason to kill him. Then he tries to arrange to figure out just who.

The most amusing thing is that the gate keeper in heaven says that all mystery writers wind up going to heaven, though he doesn't know why. There is a wry sense of humor in that for the mystery writer as this is left an open question. As for who did the murder, well my vote goes to Amanda Blake (Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke) but that is left an open question as well in this one.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Who really killed Mr. Arlington?
MisterMagooo1 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The story never actually says for certain who truly killed Mr. Arlington. After the story, Hitchcock clarifies any confusion by explaining to the audience who actually killed Mr. Arlington. However, we still don't ever really know, as Hitchcock's lips seem to be saying "Talbut" but an intentionally crude voice-over is heard to say "Benson". This was yet another example of Hitchcock's droll sense of British humour. For example, Hitchcock laments in another episode that he would very much like to visit England one day, but perhaps he shouldn't go because people there might take offense to his American accent! FYI: Although Hitchcock became an American citizen, he never gave up his British citizenship.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Who cares?
cartjos13 June 2017
I really didn't care so much who the killer was. The last few minutes of dialogue between Mr. Williams and Mr. Napier was so classy, so British, that any shortcomings others have described fade away. Seeing Amanda Blake, took a minute or two to realized it was her, shows there was more to her than Gunsmoke. This is a nice little story that won't give you nightmares.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An oddity
TheLittleSongbird16 March 2022
The premise was quite interesting and it is always nice once in a while to have an episode not directed by a series regular director, one of not many episodes of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' for that to be the case. John Williams, in his third appearance of the series, was always worth watching, providing some memorable turns in for example 'Dial M for Murder'. Same goes for Alan Napier, best known to me as Alfred Pennyworth in the 60s 'Batman' show.

Season 1 had some very good and more episodes. The very difficult to rate and review "Whodunnit" to me is not one of them though. It is not a terrible episode by all means and has its moments, but it didn't really click with me to be honest. 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' was no stranger to changes of pace and mostly did them well, but "Whodunnit" doesn't really do its premise justice and doesn't live up to its initial promise. As far as Season 1 goes, this is one of the weaker entries.

"Whodunnit" does have good things. Napier brings a lot of class and intrigue to his role. Also enjoyed the ironic and droll humour, along with the sophisticated and witty kinds when done well ironic and droll humour is great (less keen on the cruder type, which comedy today is full of). Hitchcock's bookending is typically fun.

It does start very well, intriguingly and humorously. It looks pretty decent. Did like the chemistry between Williams and Napier.

However, Williams is not at his best and this is one of his weaker guest appearances in a role that does not suit him. He does try definitely, but his character's pomposity is very overdone in the writing which made him impossible to connect with. Actually ended up not caring enough about the identity of the murderer. Have seen mixed views on the ending, to me it is more conclusive than has been said but it did feel rushed and took a while for me to get the head round.

Despite starting off promisingly, this promise is not kept all the way through. The rest of the story felt too over-stretched and it also came over as silly and muddled. The sets are on the sparse side and the direction is pretty run of the mill, getting the job done in an alright way but it doesn't ever feel distinguished or inspired.

Concluding, an odd one. 5/10.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doesn't Live Up To The Opening
dougdoepke31 May 2016
The entry doesn't come off despite some promising ingredients. The clever premise would make an engaging Twilight Zone, minus Hitch's whimsy, of course. Mystery writer Arlington (Williams) is murdered in bed, but heaven's admitting angel (Napier) gives him a few minutes reprieve to return to earth and find out who the culprit is. Trouble is there's no shortage of suspects, including the writer's wife (Blake). Seems our sleuth was not a very nice guy in real life. So which suspect is it.

Some Hitch favorites are in the cast, including Williams, Napier, and the sour-looking Coolidge. But I did expect Marshal Dillon to stride in and rescue Miss Kitty, oops, right era, wrong series. But it was unusual seeing Blake in a role outside of Dodge City. Frankly, I didn't think the rather listless payoff measured up to the opening. Plus, the suspects' portrayals are colorless, probably so that the culprit will be hard to detect. Anyhow, if heaven is anything like Hitch's version, I'm ready, especially if Ruta Lee is my angel escort.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Pretty ridiculous.
planktonrules18 February 2021
"Alfred Hitchcock Presents" tended to repeat guest stars quite often, and "Whodunit" represents the third time British actor John Williams appeared on the show in season 1 alone.

It begins in a cartoony version of Heaven and Alexander (Williams) comes gliding into the Wilfred's office (Alan Napier) on a cloud....and he's wearing silly little angel wings. Wilfred the Recorder talks over Alexander's life and informs him he was murdered. This annoys Alexander to no end, as the record doesn't show WHO murdered him...and since Alexander was a mystery writer, he feels he needs to know. Fortunately, Wilfred allows Alexander to relive his last year of life...to figure out who his murderer is.

Well, THAT was an experience! And, not a good one. The episode was just silly and dumb....and left me wondering who thought this would be a good idea for an episode!
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
John Williams return isn't a promising one.
b_kite23 November 2019
Famed mystery and suspense writer Alexander Penn Arlington finds himself in heaven after the shocking revelation that he was murdered over his assumption that he had a heart attack. Arlington talks with his recording angel Wilfred and the two come to an agreement that he can return to earth to live out his last day to discover who murdered him and why?. The question however isn't why but who as Williams plays such a cocky stuck up a** that its hard to imagine he wasn't murdered long before, the revelation of the perpetrator is pretty weak, the only sorta saving grace is the fact that Williams himself admits in the end that he was an a** and doesn't understand how he made it to heaven in the first place, the response to that is sadly even more stupid. I was more interested when Amanda Blake showed up in a rare appearance outside of Gunsmoke then anything else. However, the opening scene of John Williams riding into heaven on a cloud dressed in full angel get up (i.e. wings & harp) maybe one of the funniest things ever.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Fun, but nonsensical as always
collings50022 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Like most yarns about time travel, this one ultimately makes no sense at all. If this guy goes back in time to re-live his murder and discover whodunit, then why does he arrange to have all of the potential suspects in the room with him at the time of the "murder" when - obviously - this configuration did not exist the first time around? If I'm missing something here, then help me...please! (If I'm a literal-minded boor, don't bother to tell me. I've heard that one already.)
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Whodunit
bombersflyup9 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
What's the intent of this piece? It's void of substance. Why did the other two get up and surround him, they weren't in on it.
0 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed