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.
Add a Review
-
The_Void25 May 2009
-
daoldiges5 August 2022English suspense film with a very solid British cast, along with lone American Paulette Goddard. Sylvester, Maben, and Napier are all quite good, but it's Goddard who doesn't quite fill her characters larger than life shoes. She plays Angie, a woman all the men in the film seem to love and adore, as well as Maben's Joan, who is completely devoted to Angie. Goddard is fine but is unable to create a character of great wit, dynamism, beauty, or uniqueness to make such admiration from everyone even remotely plausible. This unfortunately undercuts large parts of the story. The direction is also a bit pedestrian and lacks vision. Despite the many flaws and weaknesses, The Unholy Four is not without suspense was still mildly entertaining.
-
A man with a rather unfortunate haircut shows up after being missing for three years. Turns out he had amnesia due to a blow on the head and has just recently recovered his memory. He confronts his wife and his friends, convinced one of them tried to kill him three years earlier. On the same night he returns, one of his friends winds up murdered and bad haircut guy is the prime suspect.
Talky, mostly dull mystery from Hammer with the added appeal of having Paulette Goddard in it. This is called a film noir by some but frankly I don't see it. Sometimes it seems every movie involving murder or sex from the '40s and '50s is labeled film noir. There has to be a more specific meaning than that. For me there is and this doesn't fit my definition. Anyway, the biggest draw to this is Paulette Goddard. She's fine, as is the rest of the cast, but nothing to write home about. She was in her forties at this time and still looked good but that is NOT her on the movie poster and DVD cover. She does not appear in this movie scantily clad in lingerie. Sorry! Oh, and for some reason they tried to pass this off as being written by the actor George Sanders, when it was actually written by Leigh Brackett. Not sure why the deception. Were audiences in 1954 really craving George Sanders or something? -
elo-equipamentos5 July 2020Paulette Goddard was in early age one of most beauties actress at Hollywood scene, drawing attention of Charlie Chaplin who marry her, made great movies, in this minor British unknown Noir she is already older for the role, even so was a highlight to promote the picture, an unusual story of a disappeared wealthy businessman Philip Vickers who suddenly appears to find out who try out killed him in sea fishing travel with four friends at Portugal four years before, there someone hits his head and he fell off at ocean, stays with amnesia and has to work as seaman to survives, recovering his memory afterwards is backing home he suspects for all four former friends including his wife Angie (Paulette Goddard) soon one of the four is found death at river, the police takes over the investigation always suspecting of Vickers had commited as crime revenge, a dense and intriguing Noir, aside Goddard was the top billing cast who shines is the resentful husband Vickers (William Sylvester in a robust acting ) between betrayals and hate for past happenings the movie flows in a binding shadows of doubt, well-dramatized by the skillful director Terence Fisher!!
Resume:
First watch: 2020 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7 -
malcolmgsw23 December 2022Paulette Goddard was one of a flock of American female stars who were in their forties without a studio contract and who came to England to try and revive their fading careers. As in this case it didn't work. She only made one more film after this.
This Hammer film starts off at a slow pace,with everybody wondering why and how William Sylvester has suddenly returned when he was thought to have fallen overboard some years ago.
Then of course murders start happening all around Bday studios.
The denouement when it comes,is fully explained in the final scenes. A totally lacklustre film which called time on her feature film career,with the exception of her final Italian film. -
last-picture-show25 October 2009This British film noir is not bad it's just not particularly good. The story offers a good premise with a supposed dead man returning home to seek revenge and there are some interesting characters but overall the script let's the story down and it's hard to hold viewers attention all the way through. So much that viewers might find themselves noticing goofs, in particular the kitchen, the layout of which changes half way through. In an early scene when Vickers first arrives home he makes himself some breakfast and the stove is by the window. In a later scene he is making coffee and now the stove is now on an interior wall. I want a kitchen like that! I was particularly disappointed with Paulette Goddard's character who isn't given enough to do and when she is on screen comes across badly. The scene where she stops Vickers and Saul fighting is laughable. She is supposedly rushing across the room to stop them but she teeters on her heels, hands aloft, like Barbara Windsor in a Carry On film purring 'stop that!' like she couldn't give a damn who gets hurt. Paul Carpenter gives good value as always and is perhaps the most convincing character on board. Worth watching if you've nothing better to do but not one of Hammer's best Brit noirs.
-
"The Stranger Came Home" is a 1954 British noir directed by Terence Fisher and starring Paulette Goddard. The film is based on a novel by George Sanders, THE George Sanders. Apparently he wrote a few novels. Let's hope they were more interesting than this.
Goddard plays Angie Vickers, whose husband Philip disappeared four years ago on a fishing trip in Portugal and is presumed dead. He suddenly comes home after having amnesia. His memory of the night he disappeared is dim, but he knows that one of the three friends who accompanied him to Portugal wanted him dead. When one of them turns up dead, Philip is the obvious suspect.
This thing is slow as molasses, with a sleepwalking performance by the leading man. Goddard gives the film some class and spark. She's beautiful, charming, and has a nice wardrobe.
Skip it. -
profh-119 February 2022On a fishing trip, a businessman is nearly murdered by one of his 3 partners, but winds up with amnesia instead. When he turns up unannounced 4 years later... it hits the fan. WHO tried to kill him-- and, was his wife (who the others all had a thing for) or his social secretary (who resents his company ruining her father) involved?
To me, anything with Michael Carrerras & Terrence Fisher is worth a watch. William Sylvester (who physically reminds me of a guy who spent 3 whole years trying to have me fired from a job) is the lead. Apart from "2001" (where nobody exhibited any humanity), he was quite memorable in one of the very best Roger Moore "SAINT" episodes, "Interlude In Venice". Paulette Goddard (who I found so adorable in "THE GHOST BREAKERS") is the wife. Alvys Maben is the social secretary with the most obvious motive. She's a dead ringer for my aunt, and considering when she was born, she could have been her under a stage name (an idea that seems more intriguing than the film itself--HEH!). Both Goddard & Maben turned up on the Ronald Howard "SHERLOCK HOLMES" series, Goddard in 1, Maben in 3 episodes. I was shocked to read Maben passed away at age 41. Nobody seems to know much about her.
I agree with others who said Russell Napier as the Inspector was the most interesting character. There's a moment of humor to break the tension when his assistant suggests a maniken is "modest", the kind of thing Hammer would regularly include in many of their films. Nice photography, and a mystery that held my attention and kept me guessing. Funny thing-- the one scene where someone tries to blackmail someone else, the would-be blackmailer's dialogue made me think, "George Sanders should have played that part." It reminded me, if only for a moment, of his role in "REBECCA". -
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.
-
tony-70-6679205 December 2021Terence Fisher didn't direct his first film until 1948, when he was 43, and his reputation rests on the horror films for which Hammer is famous. He directed the first, "The Curse of Frankenstein" in 1957 and made about twenty. Before starting that run he made some main features ("So Long at the Fair" with Bogarde and Simmons was pretty good), but also a string of Bs and some TV episodes. The quality of these is variable: "Stolen Face" was dire, and this one is no better.
Philip Vickers (William Sylvester) returns home to his wife (Paulette Goddard) after 4 years, with amnesia and a nasty scar on his forehead. On a fishing trip in Portugal with three colleagues (employees?) one of them had spiked his drink and tried to kill him. The other three are Job (Patrick Holt), Bill (Paul Carpenter) and Harry Brice, who we never see because he's killed soon after Vickers returns, and Vickers is suspected of his death. Russell Napier, who featured in many of the 30 minute "Scotland Yard" mini-features introduced by Edgar Lustgarten, is the cop trying to solve that case, while Vickers naturally wants to know who tried to kill him in Portugal.
Some of the credits will raise the hopes of Hammer fans: Michael Carreras wrote the script and produced, while Jimmy Sangster was the production manager. The film is based on a novel credited to George Sanders but actually written by Leigh Brackett, who scripted such classics as "The Big Sleep" and "Rio Bravo." It's a great pity Sanders didn't play Vickers, as he'd have made the character much more interesting than Sylvester, who's dour and monotonous. Paulette Goddard, contrary to the comments of one or two reviewers here, was still lovely in her 40s, and it's understandable that all of "The Unholy Four" (the US title) wanted her. However, her material had been declining for some time and this dud seemed to be the last straw. Apart from about 10 TV episodes and Maselli's excellent version of Moravia's "Time of Indifference" she retired. I agree with JohnHowardReid that Napier and Carpenter give the best performances, but overall the film is a rather plodding bore, even silly in places. People don't lock their home, they leave the keys in their cars, and an armed man is all too easily routed by an unarmed man. The denouement, after a second murder, depends on a medical examiner determining the cause of death in what must be record time.
Trivia. There's no mention of Hammer in the credits. The copyright belonged to Exclusive Pictures, their distribution arm, and the first name up is that of Robert L. Lippert. He'd contracted to distribute Hammer's films in the US, which explains why so many of their pre-horror films featured minor and/or fading American stars. Hammer found it cheaper to film in large Thames-side country houses rather than studios, and Oakley Court, whose name you'll see on the gates of the Vickers's home, was one of them, though by 1954 they'd moved on. -
bradnfrank1 March 2013Most 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. -
FilmFlaneur16 May 2009Taking advantage of arrangements favoured by the UK's Eady levy (a state film subsidy established after the war) in 1950, American producer Robert Lippert formed a business alliance with Hammer studios. Under the agreement, Lippert would provide American acting talent - frequently shop-worn stars or just supporting actors who fancied a profitable trip out of the country - while Hammer would supply the rest of the cast and the production facilities. Together they would split the profits. Famous for his concern with the bottom line, Lippert produced over 140 films between 1946 and 1955, characteristically genre pieces such as I Shot Jesse James or Rocketship XM. For the British deal, most of the films were noir-ish thrillers. None were entirely of the first rank, but they remain never less than entertaining and include this title.
The Unholy Four (aka: A Stranger Came Home, 1954) co-stars Paulette Goddard as Angie, the wife of Vickers (William Sylvester) who returns home unexpectedly after four years. Vickers had previously disappeared in Portugal on a fishing cruise and has been presumed dead, his face scarred with an attack by an unknown assailant, leaving Vickers with temporary amnesia. As with several of these Hammer co-productions, the best part of The Unholy Four occurs at the beginning, as a stony faced Vickers appears unannounced at midnight. He ominously confronts his acquaintances in the middle of their party - including series' regular Bill (Paul Carpenter), who admits "I don't like people - even the people I like." Vickers, Bill, and the others, are naturally all suspects in the first killing shortly afterwards. After this, even with director Fisher's efforts, the tension slumps with too much talk, despite a couple of murders and a short-lived sub plot involving blackmail. The film might just as well have been called 'The Country House Murders' for, apart from a flashback sequence and Vickers' mental confusion about his past, the noir enthusiast will find little to detain him in a mystery set mainly in a large house and grounds, well away from the urban jungle. Russell Napier (familiar from his very similar roles in TV's contemporaneous Scotland Yard) plays the cop on the case, at one point gathering his suspects in the drawing room to state his suspicions. Goddard adds a touch of class to proceedings but, surprisingly, plays second fiddle to Sylvester, and displays little of the sexual allure the poster promises. The source novel for the film, incidentally, was penned by one George Sanders. -
drednm10 March 2017William 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. -
mark.waltz10 January 2013A boring, pointless murder mystery, this wants us to believe that no sooner does one man come back apparently from the dead then one of his old business partners is murdered and the other two, along with the newly returned man's wife (Paulette Goddard), become suspects in the man's murder. Goddard, the only familiar name in the cast, is still an attractive lady, but her hairstyle and wardrobe make her way too matronly looking to be a good femme fatal. The rest of the characters are so dull and the mystery so obvious and unsuspenseful that you will find it hard to retain interest. I don't think true connoisseurs of film noir will consider this part of that genre, even if the title suggests such and it takes place mostly at night.
-
Leofwine_draca18 March 2021Although its US title of THE UNHOLY FOUR makes it sound like a Lon Chaney sequel, THE STRANGER CAME HOME is actually a low rent film noir from the Hammer stable, shot in 1954 with William Sylvester as the lead. He plays an amnesic who returns to catch up with his three best friends three years after the accident that robbed his memory and nearly killed him. Soon, one of the men turns up dead and it transpires that someone is trying to cover up the dark events of the past...
As with many of Hammer's early 1950s films, this really isn't much to write home about. The direction is plodding at best and Terence Fisher just doesn't seem to have much affinity for the material, despite being Hammer's most prolific director. His approach is strictly workmanlike. The beginning is intriguing enough, but then the whole thing is just slow and bland and dialogue-heavy until the brief but exciting climax. I can't blame the cast either, because the actors, including genre veterans Patrick Holt and Paul Carpenter, do their best. It's not one I can recommend. -
kellyadmirer12 November 2021I 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. -
guil1220 October 2001Miss Goddard appears with an all English cast in this film noir and turns in a rather good performance. She is low keyed in this but still looks incredible. Most of the English actors aren't well known to American audiences, but, like English actors, they are good at what they do. And Paulette holds her own with a very distinguished supporting cast, as she did with AN IDEAL HUSBAND shot several years before this. The plot is a bit confusing. All about someone returning to find the person who attempted to end their life. Paulette is one of the suspected. This was directed by Terence Fisher, who went on to direct all those Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing horror films [Dracula, Frankenstein] several years later. I give this movie 8 stars for good acting and scenario. And, of course, a chance to see Paulette look so fetching.
-
southdavid20 October 2023I am massively behind with the "House of Hammer" podcast - months behind, but I'm still trying to catch up whenever I can and with the spirit I watched "A Stranger Came Home", or "The Unholy Four" if you prefer. It's a better premise for a movie, than in actual execution.
Four years after disappearing on a Portuguese trip, with his wife and three friends, Phillip Vickers (William Sylvester) suddenly reappears at his estate. Vickers is suspicious of his wife Angie (Paulette Goddard) as well as Job Crandall (Patrick Holt), Bill Saul (Paul Carpenter) and Harry Bryce, who are all attending a party that very night, so keeps what little he remembers about the disappearance to himself. Vickers becomes a suspect though when Bryce turns up dead, the morning after his return.
Again, the ideas of this noiry thriller are perhaps more interesting that what is ultimately provided. Part of the problem is perhaps that Vickers keeps what he's thinking to himself most of the time, especially when it comes to answering the question the other characters keep asking him "where have you been?" The murder on his first night back then leads to Russell Napier joining the film as Inspector Treheme. He joins a long line of . . . Unconventional police detectives in Hammer films, who seems to believe that Vickers did it, but not enough to take him in for questioning. The films principle failing is that, despite being just 80 minutes, it's not interesting enough to fill that time with anything other than the roundabout conversations and intimated accusations.
Performances are OK, Paulette Goddard is, as you might imagine, a class above the rest, even William Sylvester, who would be prominent in "2001. A Space Odyssey" a decade or so later. The main Hammer links are behind the camera this time, with Terence Fisher directing, but not much in the way of returning stars this time.
I say again, the premise of the film is actually reasonable interesting, but the execution is poor and the film is dull. -
F Gwynplaine MacIntyre25 August 2003The most interesting thing about 'A Stranger Came Home' is that it's based on a novel by George Sanders ... yes, I'm reliably informed that this was the well-known character actor of that name, not some other George Sanders. But our favourite cad is nowhere to be seen in this film, and nor is there a "George Sanders role" herein which might suggest that Sanders had written the novel as a vehicle for his own acting talents.
Paulette Goddard (still quite attractive at this late point in her career) stars opposite William Sylvester, best known from '2001: A Space Odyssey'. The rest of the cast in this low-budget 1954 English film are extremely obscure ... and they were obscure even in England in the 1950s.
Goddard plays Angie Vickers, a wealthy American widow who lives on a posh country estate in the Cotswolds. Three years ago, on holiday in Portugal, her husband Philip vanished over the side of their fishing boat, presumed dead. In fact, somebody coshed Philip and pushed him overboard; Philip survived, but with a convenient case of amnesia which prevented him from contacting Angie or the police. Now, three years on, Philip has conveniently regained his memory ... but he doesn't know who tried to kill him. So, he comes back to England (without a passport?) and heads straight for his wife's country home, where (conveniently) she's hosting a party for several guests who just happen to coincide with Philip's list of murder suspects. In sub-Christie fashion, the guests start dying one by one ... but is Philip topping them, or is the original assailant back in business?
'A Stranger Came Home' has lots and lots and LOTS of talk, and very little action. There are some gaping holes in the plot, and some implausible motivations. Much of the photography is a lot darker than it needs to be, without commensurate spookiness. There are passable performances from Alvys Mahen (as a secretary with a grudge, who is an obvious suspect) and from Jeremy Hawk (as a weary cop). The only real point of interest in this film is Paulette Goddard, still quite sexy in 1954 but well past her peak in terms of sex appeal or acting ability. I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10. Next case! -
The version of "The Stranger Came Home" which I saw was renamed "The Unholy Four"...which is unfortunate, as I THOUGHT it was a remake of the old Lon Chaney films (a silent and a sound remake) of the same title. But the story is completely different...and much duller.
Four years ago, Philip Vickers was on a trip to Portugal with four friends when he was apparently tossed overboard by one of them and left for dead. The resulting trauma brought on amnesia, so the events leading to his attack are unclear in his mind and he's back to solve the crime. And, to get maximum effect, he shows up unannounced! Well, pretty soon one suspect is murdered...presumably because they knew too much! Will Philip be the next? Or, perhaps one of the remaining three?
Even though the story is set in the UK, Paulette Goddard is cast as Angie...Philip's wife. I assume they cast her to give the film a bit more international appeal but Goddard's career was on the rocks and her participation in the picture must have been relatively cheap. Now, I am NOT attacking Goddard...just pointing out that by 1954, her career was almost completely over...even though she was in her mid-40s.
So is this movie any good? Well, it certainly is contrived and how much you buy the plot will depend on if you like the film. To me, the plot seems like a one in a billion type situation and films based on the notion of amnesia like this are difficult to love. Yes, amnesia is possible but like the way it happened in this story...not likely. Normally, amnesia is very short-term unless there is serious brain damage...and Philip came back looking fine and apparently with no after-effects from the attack.
Otherwise, I wasn't thrilled by the overall tempo of the film or the various cliches which really made the film seem LESS real than the Easter Bunny. It also really lacked energy and perhaps SHOWING the attack in some way would have given the movie energy or, perhaps, have some violent murders after Philip's return...but they are done in the most disconnected manner...off-screen.
The bottom line is that this is not a terrible film but the basic plot really left a lot to be desired. Watchable...but it really should have been better. -
This film boasts excellent photography and beautiful cars, but that is about its sole virtue.
An ageing Goddard is the first serious disappointment. She looks too long in the teeth to be Sylvester's wife. And, after his absence of four years through amnesia, she seems rather unfazed by his return. The director clearly missed an opportunity to extract the level of acting that Goddard had shown earlier in her career, even if she never rated a great actress.
The rest of the unholy four come across just as limp and miscast.
The chief of police actually comes across as the most believable of all participants in this feeble film noir. -
George Sanders did not write this novel. His ghost writers did and his others ones as well. It is an ordinary murder mystery with intricate intrigues, but it is well acted by William Sylvester and Paulette Goddard. The intrigue is rather weird though. Four rich friends go for a fishing holiday to Portugal, and there in Portugal one of them (William Sylvester) gets knocked off almost for good, but he survives with an amnesia that lasts for four years. Then he returns home to his fashionable residence and his wife (Paulette) shocking everyone. It appears that these four friends apparently hated each other and had good reasons for it, and so you must wonder why they went together on a holiday. There are more murders and more murder attempts, and some of them succeed, while William Sylvester and Paulette Goddard have a hard time sorting things out, especially since they both are under suspicion for one or several murders. But it all adds up in the end with some brutal scuffles on the way, while unfortunately none of the dead ones can be recalled to life. Fortunately there was only one murderer though.
-
I_Ailurophile28 December 2022Some movies are better than others about building a meaningful sense of mystery, tension, or suspense. This is one of the others, which in a way seems weird coming from a production company that in a few short years would become known as a powerhouse of genre fare. 'The unholy four,' also known as 'A stranger came home,' is almost wholly bereft of such feelings. Above all, the acting is bizarrely even-keeled at all times, no matter what's happening in a moment, and this alone does much to firstly squelch whatever the title may have to impart, and secondly, to encourage an unanticipated nap from the viewer.
There are some recognizable names involved here, not least Michael Carreras, Hammer mastermind, who wrote the screenplay and produced this picture. Director Terence Fisher helmed no few films for Hammer, in addition to this one. Are Carreras and/or Fisher responsible for the dull tone that pervades this feature? That seems more likely than the notion that each individual actor sought to adopt the same blasé comportment for these eighty minutes, though I suppose I can't rule that out. Murder is committed, punches are thrown, voices are raised, and secrets are revealed, and all this and more plays out like the cinematic equivalent of the muffled speech of adults in any Charlie Brown special.
'The unholy four' is well made from a technical standpoint, and the crew behind the scenes put in good work. All the elements are here for what could be a compelling mystery, or thriller, or film noir, or some such something or other. As a finished film, however, this is just boring and grey, becoming tedious as the minutes tick by. Movies are supposed to make audiences feel something, or think, or become earnestly invested in some fashion; the most I can say for this one is that a single happy neuron fired off in reaction to a small moment, not directly involved in the plot, that comes shortly after the one-hour mark. The writing isn't terribly convincing in any regard, the direction is bland, and the cast just coast along, to the point that when they do try to strike a particular chord, it invariably comes across as overacting. Wait, why was it that I sat to watch this?
I don't know how this feature went so wrong. It just feels so very empty, however, and all the back and forth in the plot of "maybe this! Maybe that! Who knows!" seems like listless flailing more than sincere storytelling. Check out 'The unholy four' if you want, I don't care, but don't expect much, and maybe you'll somehow end up getting more out of it than I did. -
hwgrayson9 March 2024Philip Vickers apparently lost at sea four years previously turns up to seek revenge on those who may have tried to kill him. Was it his friends, was it his wife? This is a talky film and it doesn't really make clear who the characters are and why we should care for any of them. Vickers is played in a surly way by William Sylvester and his wife Angie is a low key Paulette Goddard. The conclusion to the movie is rather rushed. It should be tense and gripping but it fails at that. The most likeable character was Inspector Traherne played in his usual capable and dogged way by Russell Napier. This was a Hammer film co-production but the company and director Terence Fisher made more interesting films than this thin offering.