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.
7 Reviews
Return of a Stranger
CinemaSerf26 February 2023
John Ireland has been imported for this rather routine crime thriller. He is "Ray", happily married to "Pam" (Susan Stephen), and newly resident in a small village with their small son. Not long after they arrive, she notices a strange man watching them. Not unsurprisingly, she gets a bit spooked and regales her husband with a rather ghastly story from her childhood and of her suspicions that this man is the very one who perpetrated an heinous crime upon her. What now ensues could have been a rather more menacing cat and mouse affair, but sadly neither the acting nor the writing do much to generate any real sense of peril as the hour this takes to conclude drags along. The photographer has had a go at creating something a little tense and the last ten minutes benefit a little from that, but ultimately this is all rather procedural Saturday afternoon fayre that throws in the odd red herring but is really all a shade too predictable.
Not Particularly Good
boblipton11 February 2023
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.
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.
Darn good UK stuff.
searchanddestroy-115 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Written by the great Brian Clemens and produced by the Danzigers - a sort of equivalent of Butchers if the same period - this little thriller from UK is excellent, brilliant for such a tiny production. Acting, editing, score, everything here is worth watching, even if it may sound familiar for movie buffs like me.
The tale of a house wife whom the husband - Ireland - is a big executive in a major company, and who is harassed by a mysterious man. A man she met some decades ago, and who searches something about her. Nothing else, but it is enough to keep you stuck to this very good suspenser. The sequence of the death in an elevator is awesome for such a little film.
The tale of a house wife whom the husband - Ireland - is a big executive in a major company, and who is harassed by a mysterious man. A man she met some decades ago, and who searches something about her. Nothing else, but it is enough to keep you stuck to this very good suspenser. The sequence of the death in an elevator is awesome for such a little film.
Intriguing thriller should of been better
gingerninjasz21 July 2023
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.
Above average for a Danziger production
wilvram19 June 2013
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.
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.
"You Belong to Me"!!!
kidboots12 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Brian Clemens had an adventurous life in which he tried journalism, working in a private detective agency and working his way up from a messenger boy at the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency. While there he wrote a screenplay for the B.B.C. - "Valid for a Single Journey Only" and by that, came to the attention of the Danzigers. The Danzigers operated a cheap as chips film company and stories about their penny pinching ways were legendary. Most actors felt that a role in a Danziger film was like the end of the line but with Clemens they had an exciting young writer.
This movie was a cut above the usual and John Ireland playing his usual edgy self was an interesting red herring: as John, a draughtsman in line for an Arts directorship who seems to have something on his mind. But the pivotal part proves to be Pam (Susan Stephen) and the "return of a stranger" is all to do with her past. In a particularly seedy sub-plot, Pam was a 14 year old orphan who engendered some unhealthy interest from an older man. She was raped, there was a media spot light trial and the man was sent to prison. Fifteen years later, Pam and John start to receive strange phone calls and neighbours inform her that a man has made inquiries of her.
The police pass it off as a "woman's imaginings" (well it was 1960)!! You never see the man's face and because the problems seem to suggest a sabotage threat to do with John's promotion, the viewer is left guessing - also the fact that the back of the man's head doesn't seem to match any other backs!! I agree the opening upbeat music may have been another Clemen's red herring to throw you off the scent!! And poor Susan Stephens sold herself short, retiring soon after this movie she said of her time at the Danzigers "that was about as low as you could go"!!
Recommended.
This movie was a cut above the usual and John Ireland playing his usual edgy self was an interesting red herring: as John, a draughtsman in line for an Arts directorship who seems to have something on his mind. But the pivotal part proves to be Pam (Susan Stephen) and the "return of a stranger" is all to do with her past. In a particularly seedy sub-plot, Pam was a 14 year old orphan who engendered some unhealthy interest from an older man. She was raped, there was a media spot light trial and the man was sent to prison. Fifteen years later, Pam and John start to receive strange phone calls and neighbours inform her that a man has made inquiries of her.
The police pass it off as a "woman's imaginings" (well it was 1960)!! You never see the man's face and because the problems seem to suggest a sabotage threat to do with John's promotion, the viewer is left guessing - also the fact that the back of the man's head doesn't seem to match any other backs!! I agree the opening upbeat music may have been another Clemen's red herring to throw you off the scent!! And poor Susan Stephens sold herself short, retiring soon after this movie she said of her time at the Danzigers "that was about as low as you could go"!!
Recommended.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
