The Stranger Came Home

I am massively behind with the "House of Hammer" podcast - months behind, but I'm still trying to catch up whenever I can and with the spirit I watched "A Stranger Came Home", or "The Unholy Four" if you prefer. It's a better premise for a movie, than in actual execution.

Four years after disappearing on a Portuguese trip, with his wife and three friends, Phillip Vickers (William Sylvester) suddenly reappears at his estate. Vickers is suspicious of his wife Angie (Paulette Goddard) as well as Job Crandall (Patrick Holt), Bill Saul (Paul Carpenter) and Harry Bryce, who are all attending a party that very night, so keeps what little he remembers about the disappearance to himself. Vickers becomes a suspect though when Bryce turns up dead, the morning after his return.

Again, the ideas of this noiry thriller are perhaps more interesting that what is ultimately provided. Part of the problem is perhaps that Vickers keeps what he's thinking to himself most of the time, especially when it comes to answering the question the other characters keep asking him "where have you been?" The murder on his first night back then leads to Russell Napier joining the film as Inspector Treheme. He joins a long line of . . . Unconventional police detectives in Hammer films, who seems to believe that Vickers did it, but not enough to take him in for questioning. The films principle failing is that, despite being just 80 minutes, it's not interesting enough to fill that time with anything other than the roundabout conversations and intimated accusations.

Performances are OK, Paulette Goddard is, as you might imagine, a class above the rest, even William Sylvester, who would be prominent in "2001. A Space Odyssey" a decade or so later. The main Hammer links are behind the camera this time, with Terence Fisher directing, but not much in the way of returning stars this time.

I say again, the premise of the film is actually reasonable interesting, but the execution is poor and the film is dull.

Most of the other reviews here rate this rather low, and say it's a poor example of film noir. Well I agree, it isn't great film noir. But it IS a very good mystery film. It's based on the novel "Stranger At Home" by George Sanders, which was actually ghost-written by acclaimed author Leigh Brackett. And the film is an amazingly faithful adaptation of the book.

The main character was probably written with Sanders in mind, but William Sylvester (best known for "2001: A Space Odyssey") is excellent in the role of the stranger who came home. This is not a must-see film, but definitely worth checking out if you have the opportunity.

IMDb's contributors are correct. Actor George Sanders actually "wrote" two crime novels: "Crime on My Hands" (1944) was published under his name and is actually written in the first person. He even mentions some of his films. "Stranger at Home" (sic) followed in 1946. In actual fact, of course, the novels merely served to give Sanders added publicity. He wrote neither. The first was ghost written by Craig Rice, and the second by none other than Leigh Brackett. I've read neither but if the DVD of "The Unholy Four" is anything to go by, "Stranger at Home" presented an intriguing premise but little reader involvement. Certainly it's hard to get over-enthused by the film. The script is weighed down with talk, the direction is stolidly routine, and Paulette Goddard will disappoint her fans. She's neither clothed nor photographed to advantage. Admittedly, a couple of good performances saved the day. I always enjoy Russell Napier. I can usually take or leave Paul Carpenter, but in this case he delivers the best acting in the film. All the same, a movie in which Paul Carpenter shines is not exactly my idea of an engrossing film noir.

A man with a rather unfortunate haircut shows up after being missing for three years. Turns out he had amnesia due to a blow on the head and has just recently recovered his memory. He confronts his wife and his friends, convinced one of them tried to kill him three years earlier. On the same night he returns, one of his friends winds up murdered and bad haircut guy is the prime suspect.

Talky, mostly dull mystery from Hammer with the added appeal of having Paulette Goddard in it. This is called a film noir by some but frankly I don't see it. Sometimes it seems every movie involving murder or sex from the '40s and '50s is labeled film noir. There has to be a more specific meaning than that. For me there is and this doesn't fit my definition. Anyway, the biggest draw to this is Paulette Goddard. She's fine, as is the rest of the cast, but nothing to write home about. She was in her forties at this time and still looked good but that is NOT her on the movie poster and DVD cover. She does not appear in this movie scantily clad in lingerie. Sorry! Oh, and for some reason they tried to pass this off as being written by the actor George Sanders, when it was actually written by Leigh Brackett. Not sure why the deception. Were audiences in 1954 really craving George Sanders or something?

Neither Hammer studios nor director Terence Fisher are best known for their film noir style efforts; and after seeing this film, it's not difficult to work out why. The Unholy Four works from an intriguing plot line, and I was sure it would lead to an at least decent slice of British noir. The plot focuses on a man returning home three years after being hit on the head during a fishing trip with friends, and presumed dead. He actually just had amnesia all that time, and he returns home for revenge. It's an interesting plot on paper; but it doesn't translate to the screen well and that is largely down to a turgid script that fails to generate any interest in the main characters or their situation. The acting doesn't go above average and nobody in the cast particularly stands out, This film was made three years before director Terence Fisher would have his breakthrough hit with the horror classic The Curse of Frankenstein; and on the basis of this film, it has to be said that thrillers weren't his forte. Overall, this film might be worth a look for Hammer aficionados that want to see everything that ever came out of the studio; but for most people, this won't be of interest and should be avoided.