ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

bkoganbing Some important names were getting good exposure for their talents in When Strangers Marry. In front of the camera were Kim Hunter and Robert Mitchum. And behind are director William Castle later famous for horror pictures and Dimitri Tiomkin whose music scores were usually in films with far bigger budgets and vistas than When Strangers Marry.Young Kim Hunter arrives in New York where she's on impulse married salesman Dean Jagger on short acquaintance. He's been delayed in Philadelphia and tells her to go to his flat and set up housekeeping. A helpful friend in Robert Mitchum proves even more helpful when Jagger is delayed for quite some time.Good reason he has been delayed. The opening shows the homicide of a drunk and flannel mouth Dick Elliott who was bragging about the $10,000.00 he had even dropping large bills on the barroom floor. The next thing we see is the hotel maid finding the body and the cops Philly have a lead the suspect has gone to New York.Where Neil Hamilton of the NYPD takes over and Jagger looks good for it to a disbelieving Hunter.Not the greatest of noir films. But When Strangers Marry gave Robert Mitchum his first taste of a genre where at RKO he would get some really great roles and become a mega-star. Hunter and Jagger do well in their parts. For a look at some movie legends developing I would give When Strangers Marry a viewing.

LobotomousMonk Only one year after The Chance, William Castle was developing his stylistic system with leaps and bounds. The opening scene of When Strangers Marry demonstrates creative blocking and staging. The mysterious big man at the bar has his back squared up to the camera but you will notice his shoulder slightly blocks out the front of the bartender's face. This is a nice touch in the directing to emphasize the physical size and thus ominous presence of the mystery man. This kind of technique greatly supports plot progression in focusing the line of questioning of the spectator immediately onto the identity of the unknown figure. Castle also explores the abilities and utility of mobile framing. The effect is not only solid construction of space but also formation of an energy and dynamism in directing that can translate to the mise-en-scene and diegetic world. Castle also defies other crutches of "B" status films through adhering to elements of continuity. Certain scenes involve hi-key lighting setups framing characters in closeup and in these shots, Castle is consistent in providing diegetic light sources that match up. A nice touch. Another nice touch is something out of the Jean Renoir book (high praise for Castle) when the depth of field and deep staging of certain scenes allows characters seen in the distance through apartment windows to contribute to the progression of the plot in a casual and realistic manner. Some Castle tropes get an early treatment in this film. The "Silk Stocking Murder" begs many questions, not the least being one about why the audiences were not provided with a gimmicky pair of stockings on their way into the theatre. Castle frames a clock which is a popular trope of his. He also makes an appearance in the film (through a framed photo) and becomes an integral part of the plot itself as opposed to holding mere decorative function. Castle's photo might be considered one of his early gimmicks and is certainly connected to my own thesis about his impresario directing playing on the enframing and "4th Wall" of screen-spectator identification. This interplay of interiority and exteriority runs throughout the film from the sequence at Coney Island (great montage) with the carny barker to the couple "taking in a movie". More Castle developments can be mentioned... the floating heads made a regular appearance in his famous gimmick horror films as well as the oblique framing of shadows. It is difficult to understand how Castle became stymied with primitive stylistic systems while he so crisply demonstrated a full understanding of who he was to become as a director in When Strangers Marry. And the film received high critical praise. This confounds me. The one Castle prerequisite element that I could do without however is the plot contrivances (shoot the scenarists and producers as well). Strangers has its fair share of contrivance from convenient gaps in the blasting of street music (just close the window!) to a missing persons report being filled with a homicide detective. The ending has a twist but is contrived and a little too cute for this reviewer. All in all, one of the superior directing efforts by Castle and an engaging film overall.

dougdoepke Check out that unsettling scene in the lonely police waiting room. Little guy Houser (Lubin) sits on one side and vulnerable newly-wed Millie (Hunter) sits on the other with a big empty space between. It's a great visual metaphor for the danger facing our young stranger in the city. A hostile world appears on one side and poor Millie all alone on the other. Even little things work against her in the big, impersonal surroundings—the unhelpful news guy, streetlights suddenly going out. Then too, those spare sets from budget-minded Monogram fairly echo with undefined menace.From such atmospheric touches, it's not hard to detect the influence of Val Lewton's horror classic The Seventh Victim (1943). At the same time, the movie's director William Castle was a moving force behind the brilliantly unconventional Whistler series from Columbia studios. So the many imaginative touches here, like the lunging lion's head that opens the film, should come as no surprise.Despite the overall suspense, I had trouble following plot convolutions—who was where, when, and why. But then the screenplay did have four writers, which is seldom an asset. Still, the mysterious husband (Jagger) and Millie's suspicions does generate core interest. In my little book, the main appeal is in the players and the atmosphere, such as the winsome young Hunter, a virile young Mitchum, and the jazzy Harlem nightclub. All in all, the sixty-minutes remains a clever little surprise from poverty row Monogram.

GManfred This picture sounds a lot better than it actually is. Given the big name cast and Director, expectations are high but it doesn't deliver. One big flaw is the storyline, which is completely preposterous and with some of the most absurd contrived coincidences in the annals of mysteries. 'Betrayed' is disguised as a film noir but it is a feeble attempt at melodrama using 40 watt light bulbs to create film noir ambiance. (for the record, I've tried 6 times to spell ambiance the correct way, -ence, but the website won't take it).I think the main culprit is Castle, who allows his story to stop at unexplained dead ends and manufactures situations for his players which don't hold water and make good actors look bad. And there is not one lick of tension or suspense in any scene in the picture.It is a Monogram production and the lack of a big budget is understandable, but comparisons between Castle and Hitchcock are laughable. With such material, Hitchcock could have gotten at least an Academy Award nomination - or at least a coherent plot.Can't recommend it, and if you get a chance to see it, miss it. Or, catch it and see if you, too, feel IMDb's present rating of 6.8 is way off the mark.