Watch Stranger in the House For Free

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Thrillers on IMDb tend to be evaluated by standards appropriate either for Orson Welles or Hitchcock, or for contemporary high-budget endeavors. This movie has been rated as a mediocre, implausible contribution to the genre. I find this hard to comprehend. The movie has almost everything lacking in the vast majority of thrillers turned out these days (going back decades), and is far more artfully assembled -editing, direction, acting, pacing, modulated but effective suspense, and narrative leanness, not a trace of fat- than almost everything that's come out since the turn of the millennium. The movie moves at just the right pace, the interweaving of the characters' motives and behaviors is artfully executed and the musicality of the picture's dynamics is professionally effected. - It's more engaging than most popcorn entertainments and a welcome addition to a genre that in these times seems to be in an advance state of decline. If you like well toned classic thrillers with an updated '70s touch, you'll like this.

This film was OK it starts off with two men robing a rich old woman's house and then she comes home and then she and one of the thieves die and the man that died dropped a diamond necklace in a crack in the basement and then 4 months later the other robber comes back to the house to get it.The movie was better then i thought it would be but at times the movie was crap and the acting was OK but it could of been better.U should rent this film or buy it if $5 or less and this film stars OK actors like Michele Greene,Steve Railsback,Bruce Dinsmore,Kathleen Kinmont and Vlasta Vrana.over all i give this movie 5 out of 10.

This is neither the best nor the worst movie of the genre ever made but it does have some serious flaws unfortunately. First of all there are lapses in credibilty and sense that wouldn't get by your average 8-year-old, and let's face it the characters don't exactly inspire a lot of sympathy. A good rule of thumb for these damsel-in-distress movies is that you sympathize with the woman in distress. Not so here. Michele Greene's Joanna is supposed to be strong and sympathetic but succeeds only in being irritating-you can actually understand why someone might want her dead, particularly her husband. And we won't even discuss him. You'd be hard-pressed to find a sleazier, more contemptible SOB anywhere. To think that this lowlife is sleeping with two women at the same time simply boggles the mind-it's amazing that he could get even one. Any woman with the self-esteem of a frisbee wouldn't go within 10 feet of this guy. The movie does have its good points though. It's tightly paced,fairly suspenseful, and it does hold the attention. It does have some good performances to counterbalance the uninteresting leads. Kathleen Kinmont is exceptionally good as the hapless neighbor. Steve Railsback is his usual charsimatic self, but the most interesting character,at least in my opinion was Joanna's mother Vivian. Played by Una Kay, a Canadian actress she gets killed off far too early in the proceedings. Instead of the endless scenes of Joanna's heart-to-heart talks with Dorothy I kept hoping for a flashback or two of Vivian. It might have fleshed out the characterizations a bit and maybe even made Joanna a tad more sympathetic, which certainly couldn't have hurt. A small part admittedly, but Una tears into it as if it were her last meal. Here's hoping we see a lot more of this talented lady. Again, this really isn't a bad movie. Just don't expect Hitchcock.