The Stranger Came Home

William Sylvester stars as Philip Vickers, a man who suddenly returns home after being considered dead for four years. Seems he was on a fishing trip in Portugal of all places and disappeared after going ashore. His memory of events is getting drunk, mugged and imprisoned.

His wife (Paulette Goddard) is having a big party and his three cronies are all in attendance. But one of the cronies is killed that very night. Who did it? All evidence points to Vickers.

When a local detective (Russell Napier) arrives on the scene he's convinced that Vickers is the killer but the wife and pal Bill Saul (Paul Carpenter) keep doing suspicious things. Then there's that creepy Joan (Alvys Maben) lurking in the background.

After another murder, things start getting serious.

Low-budget thrillers has some good points but the many negatives bring it down. The sets are incredibly ugly, and then there's that 50s space-age metal kitchen that keeps shape shifting. Goddard (about 44 at the time) is badly costumed and lit. But the story is pretty good.

Goddard, despite star billing, has little to do. Sylvester and Carpenter are good, and Maben is a scene stealer. Napier is also good as the detective. Don't by fooled by George Sanders' listing. He's not in the film, and the novel her wrote was actually ghost-written by someone else.

I watched "The Unholy Four" (the US title) because it stars Paulette Goddard. She was absolutely brilliant in 'Modern Times" (1936) and a few other films. Unfortunately, this is not one of them.

This is one of those the-butler-did-it-in-the-parlor-with-a-candlestick high society dramas that might actually be improved if the dialog were just a radio play. Then you would have to fill in the blanks with your imagination instead of being subjected to really uninteresting visuals.

The film begins with a somewhat high-concept premise typical of the time. A man (William Sylvester) returns to a fancy mansion (yes, it's that kind of film, all drawing-room talk and men dressed in tuxedos) coincidentally on the night of a big party where everyone essential to the plot is conveniently present. People who knew him tend to faint (very unconvincingly, Paulette I'm looking at you) when they see him, but he transitions back into his old life at warp speed. Turns out (this takes an ungodly long time to be revealed) he was lost at sea while fishing with "friends." Apparently, someone hit him on the head to help matters (and this is never shown and must be assumed from random clues). However, he survived as an amnesiac for three or four years (the script is a little hazy on precise details, apparently he lost his memory for three years but was gone for four for some reason). Sure, happens all the time.

After a fairly interesting start, the film quickly devolves into a standard "who tried to kill him" scenario, with additional dead bodies popping up to liven the proceedings. I'll give the author (not George Sanders) credit, it dishes out its share of red herrings, though you won't believe any of them. The last fifteen minutes is actually fairly good, with a suspenseful and satisfying conclusion.

The problem is the dreary hour it takes to get to that conclusion. Although Goddard gets prominent billing as the "star" (hey, can we make the titles any bigger?) the story actually revolves around the guy who suddenly shows back home to throw a spanner in the works. Goddard's character just does standard "surprised but then loyal wifey" stuff. Sylvester is given little to work with, and he dutifully does little with it (his hair stylist should have gotten the billing, not him).

People love to say that British actors are always phenomenal, but I didn't see any of that. Sylvester basically sleepwalks through the film until the climax, but it's not really his fault - he's given little to work with. The others are just random asteroids floating around him. They do say their lines with great enunciation, however.

The real problem with the film is that Goddard doesn't even show up until 13 minutes in, and after that she also is given little to do. Instead, we get repeated snarky interludes between Sylvester's character and his colorless former best buds. He has the typical "red herring" antisocial attitude of someone who's a little too obvious as the "bad guy." You know right from the start didn't do what others think he did (he becomes a suspect of nefarious doings himself) because he tries too damn hard to make himself look suspicious. In short, Goddard looks pedestrian, the other women look dull and uninteresting, the men walk around saying pompous things with snide inflections.... quite simply, nothing interesting happens.

Charles Napier is the only remotely believable character as the policeman investigating the entire situation, but his character only appears now and then and strangely seems only vaguely interested in the reasons behind Sylvester's absence for four years. Paul Carpenter as one of the suspects helps at times but certainly can't carry the picture.

I found the direction pedestrian, the acting rote, the wardrobes blah (especially Goddard's), and the setting uninteresting. Everyone seems determined to show as little real emotion as possible, doling it out like water when a group is stranded in the desert. The ending is good, but not enough to warrant sticking through this.

It's okay to have on in the background while you're doing something else. Listen in, maybe glance at the screen when Paulette is talking, and so on. Just don't expect much. Tune in for that ending, and pat yourself on the back for figuring it all out halfway through.

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.

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.

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.