The Unsuspected (1947)

Absolutely the worst movie.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

If you ever wanted to see a blend of 40s film-noir and classic (30s to 40s) horror, this is the movie for you. It opens with murder of a young woman, Rosalind, which is quickly written off by the police as suicide. So, now we know there is a murderer on the loose. Rosalind was the secretary of a seemingly-wealthy host of a popular mystery radio-show, Victor Grandison (Claude Rains). Strange events soon start taking place at his household. The script seems to have been written with film-noir in mind.There is murder, deceit, suspense, a damsel in distress, a guy playing detective, etc. However, one distinctive feature of noir is that it is grounded reality, more so than other genres and script fails at this by incorporating some rather improbable events. How to remedy this? By adding a touch of horror of course (a genre where suspension of disbelief is stretched quite often). At the centre of it is Claude Rains giving a superb performance. Suave, calm assured, sinister (and caring), his persona is more of a horror villain (as opposed tough and street-smart noir characters). It is a joy to watch him. The rest of the cast is serviceable. Some other reviewers have complained about too many plot threads. While I agree with them, I did not find it distracting. Could this movie have been a teensy bit better? Yes. But, is it worth watching? Yes again.

The secretary of a wealthy radio star (Claude Rains) is murdered shortly after his niece disappears at sea. Then the niece's husband nobody knew about shows up asking questions. But then the niece turns out to be alive only she doesn't remember the husband. If you think I'm revealing spoilers, all of this happens within the first twenty minutes of the movie! There's a lot going on in this one and I have barely scratched the surface.Very cool noirish thriller with a great director and cast. Claude Rains is excellent as always. I absolutely love Audrey Totter and this is in her top five films for sure. Constance Bennett is fun in a role that seems like it was written with Eve Arden in mind. Hurd Hatfield and Joan Caulfield are also good. I disagree with the reviewer complaining that the murderer's identity was revealed prematurely. This isn't a murder mystery so much as a suspenser where we know who the killer is, just not the how and why. There's a lot of clever business around that. I won't spoil it but I thought the movie was pretty smart with how it handled it. This is a mostly forgotten gem in Michael Curtiz's long and excellent career. If you're a fan of classic films, you should definitely check it out the next chance you get.

I've seen a lot of movies...a lot of film noirs at that. I think this one might just be the most underrated. The movie is genius. The acting is solid from everyone. The cinematography is great. The movie is smart, and so is the dialogue. Claude Rains is eloquent and evil, just like the glove he puts on to conceal his fingerprints. He knocks people off in such clever ways that you almost want to give him kudos. And although the movie is your standard '40s murder/crime mystery, it feels fresh. When are they going to release this masterpiece on DVD/blu-ray so more people can become familiar with it? 9 stars because it's that good and that hard to find anything wrong with it.

This is a generally well-written murder mystery film. While I liked it, one flaw is that by the end of the film almost everybody has been either killed, attempts were made on their lives or they were the murderer himself--not too many people were left and there just weren't enough red herrings to make it a true mystery. Still, considering the interesting plot and the actors involved, it's still a nifty story.The film begins with a grisly murder that looks like suicide to the police--however, the audience sees the truth that it IS a murder. Soon afterword, a long-lost heiress (Joan Caulfield) to the estate where the murder occurred turns up alive after a ship wreck. Upon returning, she is met by a man who claims to be her husband, though she has no recollection of marrying him. However, his story does appear true and she's left wondering how this could have happened.In addition to this, the lost heiress finds that many of the people who live in her home are weasels. The man she once intended to marry has married a nasty lady (Audrey Trotter) and Caulfield isn't too pleased to have them there. Before she can get around to telling them to leave, they are dead--he apparently killed her and then died while trying to make his getaway. However, in a poor move, the director shows what REALLY happened, as you see Claude Rains arranging the whole thing--though keeping this a secret for a bit longer would have probably made for a more interesting and exciting film.It seems that Caulfield's guardian (Rains) is a radio personality who has expensive tastes and he's been killing anyone who stands in his way. Ultimately his plan is to kill Caulfield to get her millions, but considering that practically everyone is dead or a near-death victim, by now the film starts to unravel a bit. Rains' brilliant alibi no longer seems so brilliant and the film ends on an interesting but anticlimactic note. Having the film end with Rains committing suicide while on the air would have been really exciting! Overall a very good but certainly not great film. It's worth seeing, but it sure could have kept us guessing longer.