Return of a Stranger

This thriller does manage to hold its suspense ,at least till near the climax,but eventually rather loses credibility.There are too many plot holes,which at times make it all seem rather silly.John Ireland is effective as the husband.Like many American stars on the decline he has been brought over to try and help get the film an American distribution.It is difficult to realise just how prolific the Danzigers were.However this was really the last decade in which the double bill would play a part in cinemas and in particular B features such as this.they would be replaced with dreadful 20 minute travelogues by the likes of Global Queensway.

John Ireland, Susan Stephen, and their little boy move into a new house. Ireland's future is bright at his advertising agency, and their home is very nice, but some one is watching them. It's Cyril Shaps, who had raped Miss Stephen when she was a teenager, and had gotten away with it. The police can't do anything about it, don't really believe it, and Ireland's abstraction loses him a promotion at work.

Perhaps my take on this movie is affected by the rise of the "Me Too" movement, but I don't really believe in Shaps' ability to stalk and menace this couple, and the way the character is written, as a delusional maniac, doesn't help much. Everyone performs as well as can be expected under the direction of Max Vanel, but this Danziger Brothers production didn't do anyone any favors beyond a paycheck. Miss Stephen later said that her three movies for the producers were a big factor in her deciding to retire.

Ray, Pam, and their young son Tommy are happy in their new home; Ray is set for a promotion at work. Their happiness is disrupted by the arrival of a stranger in town. An unknown man has gone to great lengths to find Pam, but for what purpose?

It's a somewhat effective thriller from the era; I quite enjoyed it. It has some sinister and creepy moments. It builds up well, gathers pace as it develops, and we're given a suitably dramatic conclusion.

There are some baffling moments; why on earth did Ray go out and leave Pam and Tommy in the house alone? It makes no sense. There are a couple of moments when you'll question if Pam is making it up, a pity they didn't go a little further with that.

It takes an average amount of time for us to see the face of Cyril Shaps; he's good when he eventually appears. John Ireland and Kevin Stoney were always good value. I was more interested in Susan Stephen; I can only think of her from Carry On Nurse.

The music is really intrusive; it's so heavy and is likely to get on your nerves. Thanks, TPTV, once again.

6/10.

This is a sort of cut price CAPE FEAR from the Danziger Brothers, the people who also gave us a bargain basement Dirty Dozen, TARNISHED HEROES, though in both instances the films were released prior to the appearance of their more illustrious Hollywood counterparts, several years before in the case of HEROES.

Bill Le Sage's incongruously jaunty music over the opening credits hardly sets the tone for the grim events to befall Ray and Pam Reed, married with a young son, with Ray in line for promotion at an advertising agency. Pam begins to be stalked and menaced by a creep whom she realises with horror is the man who (apparently) raped her when she was just fourteen, and whom is still obsessed with her. Though he was convicted she has not told Ray about it and more surprisingly doesn't mention it to the police when they commence their inadequate attempts to protect her and the family. The rape incident is not referred to again, as if it wasn't a matter of that much importance, but as we've been hearing quite a bit recently, things were different then. Events build to a melodramatic and slightly absurd confrontation with the offender, and it also stretches credibility that this individual could carry out a murder by sabotaging a lift in an office block. Even so, this is a gripping little film. John Ireland was an actor who could be convincing even with unpromising material and Susan Stephen is sympathetic as Pam. There's even a little bit of location shooting albeit in one of the premises of ubiquitous nineteen sixties supermarket chain Fine Fare.

Susan Stephen once declared that it was the three quickies she did in 1961 that finally finished her career and convinced her to give up acting. Now before you start getting the wrong idea about the lovely Miss Stephen, she meant the quickie quotas that Britain would knock out on the cheap to make easy money, of which Return of a Stranger was one of them. While it is not as bad as all that, this thriller does eventually go down the predictable route - which is all the more disappointing, as it throws up some intriguing possibilities.

To give the plot outlay, John and Pam Reed (John Ireland and Susan Stephen) live a nice quiet existence with their young son, Tommy. John has an office job as an advertising executive, while Pam busies herself as a housewife in their nice home. But one night she spots a stranger outside looking up at the window. She sees him again in the street, but by the time she bumps into him in the supermarket she runs out screaming (was the price of food that bad back then?). She rings hubby to come home and confesses to him that when she was raised in an orphanage she was seduced by a man who worked there called Homer Trent. She was 14, he was 25 and one day he raped her - well, when I say rape they don't actually describe it like that here. This being 1961 they phrase it more quaintly as "one day he grabbed hold of me and made love to me." It's laughable, but considering how woke the entertainment industry is at the moment it may yet resort to dialogue like this so as "not to offend." Anyway, Trent was jailed, but now it seems he is out again and stalking her. During the film she receives mysterious phone calls, her son briefly disappears, and a wreath turns up in commiseration on the death of her husband - only problem is, he's not dead!

Hubby John is naturally enough rather puzzled and worried about this and goes to the local police (as you do). However, Inspector Whittaker (Patrick McAlinney) is surprisingly sceptical and as good as suggests that it is all in his wife's mind, the result of a repressed trauma resurfacing in the present day. He does at least check up to see if a Homer Trent does exist and lives nearby, and later visits him to question him and warn him about going near her home. Trent denies doing so, having only just moved to the area, and saying he has no idea where she lives. But what is curious is that for the vast majority of the film you never see his face, only the back of his head. And as the film progresses you begin to wonder because of this whether it really may be all in her mind. She does receive phone calls, but nothing is said on the line. It's another call that convinces her that her son Tommy has been snatched, only for him to turn up home with the headmaster Mr Somerset, who is puzzled why she hasn't come to pick him up from school and denies phoning her. And the wreath she receives (along with an undertaker at the door) she sends away, so no evidence exists for the police to examine - not that the Inspector in any way believes her story. It's at this point where you wonder whether it may be a film that goes much deeper than you imagined. Could this be a clever ploy by hubby to drive her potty? He works in an office with decent looking secretaries, after all. Could it be his work colleague Wayne (Kevin Stoney), the school teacher or even the Inspector himself for some unknown reason? Or is Pam herself psychologically disturbed?

As I mentioned it offers up a host of intriguing possibilities, but in the end goes down an all too predictable path. And because of this, Return of a Stranger doesn't really rise above anything more than an average little thriller. I like Susan Stephen, but she never really had much luck with her films in her career, and both she and John Ireland's performances are never anything really more than solid. That could also be said for the rest of the cast, who are okay but never spectacular. There are also few real inventive moments in the film, apart from a notable scene in an elevator that ends with a character's murder. Maybe if the makers had taken more time with the script and delved more into the possibilities and ideas it throws up it might of been a better film. Or added more depth to proceedings by examining Pam Reed's mental trauma in the face of a sceptical police and at times even her husband. As it is it just seems cheaply made, despite it's short running time (just over an hour) and feels like a missed opportunity. It's certainly not as bad as Susan Stephen declared it, but it could and should of been much, much better.