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.
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.