AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
5,9/10
327
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaA newly married woman begins to suspect that her husband is a killer. Even worse, she soon comes to believe that she will be his next victim.A newly married woman begins to suspect that her husband is a killer. Even worse, she soon comes to believe that she will be his next victim.A newly married woman begins to suspect that her husband is a killer. Even worse, she soon comes to believe that she will be his next victim.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Frederick Worlock
- Inspector Hobday
- (as Frederic Worlock)
Phyllis Barry
- Waitress
- (não creditado)
Billy Bevan
- Taxi Driver
- (não creditado)
Colin Campbell
- Bank Teller
- (não creditado)
David Cavendish
- Policeman
- (não creditado)
Charles Coleman
- Hotel Doorman
- (não creditado)
Bob Corey
- Taxi Driver
- (não creditado)
Abe Dinovitch
- Undetermined Secondary Role
- (não creditado)
Eddie Dunn
- New York Police Detective
- (não creditado)
Eugene Eberle
- Bellboy
- (não creditado)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
I saw this as a fan of Agatha Christie and I'd see any film adaptation of her work. Not all the adaptations of her work have been successful, there are some truly great ones out there but there are some that just don't work. A Stranger Walked In doesn't fit in either of these categories, it's not a bad film but it's not a good one either. It does look good, it is lavishly photographed and the period detail is evocatively and beautifully rendered. The music has the romantic melodrama feel but also a psychologically haunting quality, not an amazing score by all means but one that fits within the film. Sylvia Sidney gives a poignant performance while bringing some edge to her role, and Ann Richards plays it straight very effectively. John Hodiak however overacts quite badly particularly in the latter part of the film, more subtlety was needed, and his chemistry with Sidney never convinces. The script is trite and does get very overwrought, again it could've done with more subtlety, a little less talk and more of Christie's writing style which would have given that. The story and pacing were also major issues. The story feels very undercooked dramatically as well as dull, and the psychological aspects that would have added to any suspense was on mute, as was the suspense. The pacing is also very pedestrian, making some of the less eventful scenes a bit hard to sit through. And the ending is more ridiculous than it is satisfying, I wasn't surprised by the outcome, it was underdeveloped and it also felt unnecessarily melodramatic. All in all, not terrible not a disappointment. 5/10 Bethany Cox
LOVE FROM A STRANGER begins with the news that a notorious murderer in NYC has been killed by the police. Then, a series of new murders occur in London, where Cecily Harrington (Sylvia Sidney) has just had her love life turned upside down by a man named Manuel Cortez (John Hodiak).
In a whirlwind romance, Cecily is swept away by the mysterious, passionate Cortez. Before she knows it, they're moving in to their honeymoon house.
Utter bliss ensues, right up until the secrets and strange behavior begin!
This is an effective suspense / thriller based on the story by Agatha Christie. Hodiak is sublimely devilish, and Ms. Sidney plays her clueless role to perfection!...
In a whirlwind romance, Cecily is swept away by the mysterious, passionate Cortez. Before she knows it, they're moving in to their honeymoon house.
Utter bliss ensues, right up until the secrets and strange behavior begin!
This is an effective suspense / thriller based on the story by Agatha Christie. Hodiak is sublimely devilish, and Ms. Sidney plays her clueless role to perfection!...
In 1937 Basil Rathbone and Ann Harding were directed by Rowland V. Lee in the film LOVE FROM A STRANGER, based on a short story turned into a play by Agatha Christie. Set in contemporary England, Rathbone played a "gallant" type who sweeps the recently enriched Harding into a sudden marriage, and then plots to kill her. She gradually realizes her danger, and at the last moment turns the tables on him. It worked well, and so it was re-shot in 1947. Now it is John Hodiak and Sylvia Sidney who play the ill-fated couple, with John Howard as Sidney's one ally on the outside trying to help her.
It is odd for two reasons. First it was reset into late Victorian, early Edwardian England. The reason seems to have been based on the success in the last few years of Victorian melodramas at the box office (GASLIGHT, THE LODGER, HANGOVER SQUARE, THE VERDICT, THE WOMAN IN WHITE). This should not have been too difficult to do, for murders for profit has occurred in every time period and era. But it leads to a bit of historical theft (see below). The other reason is that the end was altered. The Harding/Sidney character's last trick was weakened in the remake, and Hodiak did not meet quite the same just deserts that Rathbone did. In fact, it becomes something of a steal from Robert Louis Stevenson's TREASURE ISLAND in the end.
The bit of historical theft was concerning Hodiak's background. Like Rathbone, he is a serial killer of wives (usually wealthy ones). In the earlier film, it turns out that Rathbone's earlier career was written up in a book of true crimes, including a photograph of him (with a beard), that was subject to his character trying to get possession of the book before a crime connoisseur could see the picture and go to the authorities. The same plot twist is in this film, but the picture is a newspaper drawing of Hodiak with a beard. But it mentions his earlier crime as being in South Africa (Hodiak's character is given a Spainish name). The possibility exists that Agatha Christie or the screenplay writers were acquainted with the late 19th Century career of wife murderer Frederick Bayley Deeming. Deeming murdered (as far as we know) two wives, and his four children in Liverpool, England (in 1891), and Melbourne, Australia (in 1892). Although money was not involved in either case, he was a con-man, who was extradited from Uruguay in South America in 1890 to serve time for fraud in England. He also tried to confuse witnesses at his murder trial in Melbourne by first shaving off his mustache, and then growing a beard at his trial. It did not work - he was hanged in Melbourne in May 1892. Not quite a fit, but close enough to make one wonder.
It is odd for two reasons. First it was reset into late Victorian, early Edwardian England. The reason seems to have been based on the success in the last few years of Victorian melodramas at the box office (GASLIGHT, THE LODGER, HANGOVER SQUARE, THE VERDICT, THE WOMAN IN WHITE). This should not have been too difficult to do, for murders for profit has occurred in every time period and era. But it leads to a bit of historical theft (see below). The other reason is that the end was altered. The Harding/Sidney character's last trick was weakened in the remake, and Hodiak did not meet quite the same just deserts that Rathbone did. In fact, it becomes something of a steal from Robert Louis Stevenson's TREASURE ISLAND in the end.
The bit of historical theft was concerning Hodiak's background. Like Rathbone, he is a serial killer of wives (usually wealthy ones). In the earlier film, it turns out that Rathbone's earlier career was written up in a book of true crimes, including a photograph of him (with a beard), that was subject to his character trying to get possession of the book before a crime connoisseur could see the picture and go to the authorities. The same plot twist is in this film, but the picture is a newspaper drawing of Hodiak with a beard. But it mentions his earlier crime as being in South Africa (Hodiak's character is given a Spainish name). The possibility exists that Agatha Christie or the screenplay writers were acquainted with the late 19th Century career of wife murderer Frederick Bayley Deeming. Deeming murdered (as far as we know) two wives, and his four children in Liverpool, England (in 1891), and Melbourne, Australia (in 1892). Although money was not involved in either case, he was a con-man, who was extradited from Uruguay in South America in 1890 to serve time for fraud in England. He also tried to confuse witnesses at his murder trial in Melbourne by first shaving off his mustache, and then growing a beard at his trial. It did not work - he was hanged in Melbourne in May 1892. Not quite a fit, but close enough to make one wonder.
This was a rather pedestrian version of the Agatha Christie short story thriller (Philomel Cottage). Of course, the original short story confined itself to the time the couple spent on their honeymoon, although the subsequent adapted theater play expanded on the plot. Sylvia Sidney came off as a kind of Betty Davis type with a distracting edge to her delivery. John Hodiak's performance started off with subtlety but towards the end it deteriorated into melodrama. I agree with another reviewer that I couldn't help thinking that this would have gotten a much better treatment from Alfred Hitchcock. The plot development was implausible at times. Although the beginning was cogent and mood-setting, I was disappointed by the lack of subtlety in the ending, which differed from the Christie ending. The story should have been about the psychology of predator and prey, but that aspect was muted. I have not read the theater play, so I don't know how its ending compared to the wonderful Christie ending.
The short lived Trans-Atlantic studio Eagle-Lion produced this film for British and American audiences about a serial killer of wives, his own. His latest victim is Sylvia Sidney who has inherited a windfall and she's a target for fortune hunters.
Coming from America is John Hodiak playing Manuel Cortez who has already murdered two wives after draining them of their assets. His sights are set on Sidney.
I'm at a loss as to why Eagle-Lion did not cast a Latin charmer like Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero or best of all Anthony Quinn in the lead. Saying that though Hodiak exudes a menace throughout the film. Unfortunately I mean that literally as we know from the beginning that Hodiak is up to no good and is the serial killer.
Menace we have, but suspense is flattened somewhat as we know from the beginning exactly what Hodiak's character is. Still Love From A Stranger is a good thriller
Coming from America is John Hodiak playing Manuel Cortez who has already murdered two wives after draining them of their assets. His sights are set on Sidney.
I'm at a loss as to why Eagle-Lion did not cast a Latin charmer like Gilbert Roland, Cesar Romero or best of all Anthony Quinn in the lead. Saying that though Hodiak exudes a menace throughout the film. Unfortunately I mean that literally as we know from the beginning that Hodiak is up to no good and is the serial killer.
Menace we have, but suspense is flattened somewhat as we know from the beginning exactly what Hodiak's character is. Still Love From A Stranger is a good thriller
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesPhyllis Barry's final film.
- ConexõesReferenced in Hollywood Mouth (2008)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Love from a Stranger?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Love from a Stranger
- Locações de filme
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 21 min(81 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 1.37 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente