Alfred Hitchcock Presents (TV Series) Backward, Turn Backward (1960) User Reviews

Alfred Hitchcock Presents: BACKWARDS, TURN BACKWARDS (TV) (Stuart Rosenberg, 1960) ***

[Bunuel1976 · 7/10 · 23 January 2010]

Yet another episode of the popular TV series that, apart from making the Hitchcock name a household word and his figure a veritable brand, also served as a fertile training ground for a host of future Hollywood directors (as much as a safe haven for its past stars). Again, this only proved to be borderline horror and at the very climax of it at that – when the sweet, innocent heroine turns out to be a homicidal mental case – but I found the thing most interesting for its intimate depiction of the controversial relationship between 52-year old (but acting 59) Tom Tully and 35-year old (but looking 19) Phyllis Love. Also on hand is Sheriff Alan Baxter who, apart from trying to keep the townspeople from lynching Tully, investigates the latter over the murder of Love's father (even if he had secretly suspected the true identity of the killer all along).

"She makes me feel young."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 30 November 2021]

Whew, this episode has 'creepy' written all over it. Not once did I find the May/December fairy tale between Phil Canby (Tom Tully) and Sue Thompson (Phyllis Love) remotely credible. I thought it honorable that Canby volunteered to take the fall for the death of Sue's father as the sheriff (Alan Baxter) was about to lead him away, but then the young woman has a seizure and goes berserk to settle the matter. Ironically, Canby's daughter Betty (Rebecca Welles) didn't speak up for her Dad beforehand, and it took her calling out Sue for the teen to break down and establish her guilt without even knowing it. The neighbors congregating outside the Canby home must have felt disappointed they didn't have a scapegoat to harass any more.

Pretty Sketchy

[Hitchcoc · 5/10 · 29 April 2023]

The fifty nine year old guy is in love with a nineteen year old girl. They are talking marriage. Her father is dead, bludgeoned with a pipe wrench. He had some serious anger about the arrangement that developed. So the old guy is charged with the crime because on the surface, there is no other suspect. In any drama, it has to be one of the characters we have seen. A gardener whom we've never met can't be dragged in at the last minute. There is something sort of sick about this whole thing. It's the relationship between the two "lovers." I know it takes all kinds to make a world, but the morality of the time is going to be brought to bear. One interesting thing that was the group of citizens who formed a kind of lynch mob.

I finally watched a really bad AHP

[mlh1963 · 3/10 · 8 February 2019]

I love wathcing AHP. The stories generally range from 'good' to 'excellent' with an occasional 'fair'. This episode I'd have to say 'fair' to 'poor'. The story is not the real problem (although the premise is not only weak but also kind of cringeworthy--and that's by 2018 standards). The acting by Alan Baxter is so over the top I kind of chuckled to myself a few times thinking, "Dude, switch to decaf". His character is the sherrif and I couldn't help but wonder if the budget for this episode was tight. Instead of a sherriff's uniform, he is dressed like Indiana Jones. Tom Tully is great though and the rest of the acting, while not memorable, is not terrible. Overall not the best episode by far. However, a three star AHP episode is still better than a lot of modern TV.

"Backward, Turn Backward" is compelling Hitchcock episode

[chuck-reilly · 8/10 · 16 October 2013]

The 1960 Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode "Backward, Turn Backward" is one of the more compelling and thought-provoking entries in the series. It explores very much a taboo subject for its time (i.e. an older man having conjugal relations with a much younger woman). Tom Tully is accused of killing the father of his teenage lover and all the evidence points to him. The murder weapon has been found and the motive is clear. Tully killed the man because he was dead set against the relationship and was doing everything in his power to stop it. Now the fellow is just plain dead. However, the town sheriff (Alan Baxter) is not quite convinced despite the fact that the murderer (Tully) has already been deemed guilty-as-hell and convicted in the eyes of everyone. He does some digging and soon arrives at a different conclusion. Since the screen time for the show is only about 23 minutes, it doesn't take too long for this to happen. This episode was handled by the prolific Stuart Rosenberg who ended up directing many of Paul Newman's better movies including "Cool Hand Luke." Actress Phyllis Love is Tully's young love interest and although she's already 35, she's able to effectively play a 19-year-old with surprising ease. No nonsense Alan Baxter is excellent as the skeptical sheriff and Tom Tully matches him with a superb performance as the accused man. Tully unfortunately contracted a very serious infection while touring with Bob Hope in Vietnam that cut his life short. He inadvertently became a casualty of the war and should be remembered for his patriotism.

A town in a rush to judgment....and a super-stupid twist!

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 9 April 2021]

A man has been bludgeoned to death with a wrench...a wrench that belongs to a local handyman. To further throw suspicion on Phil (Tom Tully), he has fallen in love with the dead man's daughter...and there's a HUGE age difference between them. Soon the local gossips all begin accusing Phil...mostly because he's an old guy in love with a teen*. However, all of the so-called evidence is circumstantial and put together means very little.

The set-up for this was good...and involving. However, near the end there is a goofy twist....which was pretty stupid. So stupid my daughter and I laughed at the very bad acting and writing. It's a shame, as the original story was MUCH better and actually made sense. This, on the other hand, must have made fans of the series very frustrated and annoyed.

*Although there clearly is a big age difference between them, it's not nearly as great as they portray it on the show. The 19 year-old 'girl' is, in fact, 35 and the 'old man' isn't nearly as old as he looks.

Why was he so vehemently against it?

[Sacqueboutier · 9/10 · 22 April 2018]

A compelling episode in every way and I agree with all other reviewers on the acting, directing, and storyline.

However, no one seems to address the ugly elephant in the room. Why was her father so vehemently against the relationship and why was she so psychologically disturbed? Could it be that a 'May/December' relationship wasn't the only taboo addressed here?

Due process

[kmyra8 · 10/10 · 4 August 2022]

I love this episode- LOVE IT. Nothing has changed since the 1950's to today when it comes to people thinking they know al the answers, without all the facts. I would love to know where that giant mug next to the couch is from .

Another enjoyable episode

[glitterrose · 10/10 · 11 July 2022]

I realize I'm repeating myself a lot. Overall both Hitchcock series contain more episodes I'd label as being excellent versus the few that I honestly skip if I see if they're on. I swear there are episodes I dislike. I guess I just want to focus on my favorites for the time being.

So we have a plot line that has a bunch of tongues wagging and people being judgmental against the two lead characters. Phil and Sue are the two leads. Sue is supposed to be a teenager. The actress playing her is really in her 30s. I have no idea if that was just a stroke of luck on their part by being lucky enough to cast an actress that's much older than a teenager but she's still got a convincing enough look that people might say she's probably in her early 20s at the most. Or if they figured it might look a bit more tasteful to have an older woman playing a teenager considering what the storyline is? Nobody fear this is gonna be another "Sylvia" situation where the two lead characters are the same age or have a 3 year age difference. Anyway, back to the plot. Phil is an older man. But the two have fallen in love. I guess it's up in the air what you think of a teenager and an older man falling in love. You're either gonna be repulsed or you're gonna see it the way I see it. If you're not harming anybody and you've found somebody that genuinely loves and respects you, who am I to judge? Who is anybody to judge? But Phil and Sue live in an area where people are judging. And the situation is about to get worse because Sue's father has been killed and people think Phil did it. They're really out for blood in this episode. Even Phil's daughter is showing disgust at the whole situation. This relationship between Sue and Phil has turned everybody against her father. And let me say something right quick...I do think this was all tastefully done. It's not like Phil was played off as being a dirty old man. He showed care for Sue.

There's one part in particular I got a kick out of. Sue's being interviewed by Mr. Harris and of course it's mentioned that Sue's father also didn't approve of the relationship. Sue delivers a line that her father said about "Doesn't that beat everything?!" Never fails to crack me up by how the line is said.

Phil does have some evidence against him. Phil was taking care of his grandchild and the child never cries when Phil is in his care. A child was heard crying for a lengthy period of time. A tool that belonged to Phil had been washed off. Overall it's just not looking great for Phil. Sue's pushed over the edge and I must admit this part confused me when I first watched the episode. I wasn't sure if she was having a seizure or just having a fit? I'm not talking about an over the top tantrum the way you'd expect a child to show out. I guess I'm talking about a sick woman being pushed to the brink. Turns out Sue killed her father and even with this scene, Phil's still showing love and respect for Sue as he comforts her. The "child crying" was actually Sue during her spell. I'll call it a spell since I'm still not certain if it was a seizure or a fit.