WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Joe Stemme WHEN STRANGERS MARRY (aka Betrayed) 1944. Even most film fans know William Castle only for his gimmicky 50s & 60s horror films like THE TINGLER. But, Castle cut his teeth with several crime and mystery films which often bordered on Noir such as early entries in The Whistler series. STRANGERS is very much a B movie with all the usual shortcuts (montages, stock footage and scenes that can be only seconds in length). It's an efficient enough little thriller with a stellar cast including Kim Hunter, Dean Jagger, Neil Hamilton (as another cop) and the great Robert Mitchum. Much of your enjoyment will depend on how you take the twist towards the end, but, it moves along at a brisk 67 minutes and has enough to pass the time.

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.

chaos-rampant Film noir at the time wasn't the solid genre we can identify in retrospect, and didn't even have the name yet, but there were many semi-conscious efforts like this. It is wholly ordinary in the long run, probably echoing the previous year's Shadow of a Doubt; she has married a man who is really a stranger to her and may be the killer sought by police.The interesting thing is getting to identify strange dreams filmmakers were having and weren't quite sure what about. One thing was for sure; anxiety in the air, a sense of hidden machinations behind the world.Two aspects strike some spark here, both better refined elsewhere but worth mentioning.Fluid identities; there is a second man involved, also a salesman, the same build, same height, same suit as who police are looking for, also vying for affections of the innocent country-girl fresh to New York, who might have been the husband if a letter had reached her in time. Both men are worldly and have a hint of darkness in the eye, between them is the wide-eyed girl, eager to love and trust, but suspecting something is not quite right here and this is not the same kind of life as back in Ohio.The second is synchronous overlaps; this is where reality acquires shades of meaning based on internal life the viewer knows. Look for the scene where she opens the blinds in her hotel room to the New York night and a neon sign flashes 'DANCE' in her face. Swing music reaches out to her from somewhere, suddenly a phone rings but she can't quite make out what is being said to her.The rest is a lot of wandering in and out of hotels, bus stations, cars, court-rooms, and even a black joint in Harlem. But is exhaustive, lacking any structure beyond attempts for a desperate getaway.Also notice the montage of superimposed shots from around New York; this would have been an avant-garde flourish 15 years ago, here it has saturated as low as a Monogram b-movie.

madmonkmcghee Bargain basement noir with some nice touches, but ultimately disappointing. Director Castle simply tries to be too clever and too faux artistique for such a modest melodrama. It's obvious he'd seen movies like Stranger on the Third Floor ( a moody masterpiece) and thought he'd figured out the recipe. He guessed wrong: the plot is riddled with holes, the lighting and camera-work, essential to make noir movies really work, are shoddy and bleak. The sets look like cardboard cutouts that could collapse at any moment, and some actors fumble their lines or deliver them as if they're John Barrymore. On the plus side Mitchum is his good solid self, but he just doesn't get the chance to be as charming or menacing as he should be. Kim Hunter is engaging, but she only gets to play a lovesick newlywed for the entire movie, even when the story clearly demands a change of mood. Even when she suspects her hubby of being a serial killer, she keeps staring longingly into his eyes and even helps him escape from the police. The things we do for Love! The surprise twist at the end is just too predictable to forgiveall these faults, and the ending.....surely when they're on the rooftop together the killer will.....? Nah, just let the cops nab him posting a letter. That Castle just didn't get it; no wonder he turned to effect-heavy horror flicks. Noir addicts may want to give this one a look, but probably not more than once.