I really like this film, despite Welles' own repudiation of it. All the actors are solid; great since two of my absolute favorites, Welles and Robinson, are right here.The reason I am very thankful to whoever it is that decides these things, that they put up this film is (1) I bought a very cheap DVD of it weeks ago and it didn't play the first 15 minutes, which I soon learned were crucial; and (2) I was just about to pay more money on this to get a better DVD or download it from Amazon OnDemand.Thankfully, a quick Orson Welles search here yielded this result to solve one horn of my needing-to-see-all-Welles-did-over-and-over-again dilemma.

IT's A MOVIE!
Very good one at that. One could go on about techniqe, but this WAS one of the first of the truly film noir to hit the theatres in it's time. When was the last time we heard about Nazis being hunted? That the men will die, but their poison still spreads as easily a as lie.As for your social critique, you might spend some time away from the movies and get out more and socialize with the world. Silver Screen fantasies have been around since the nickleodean... " Oh what a Brave New world with such people in it! ---DJ Bill Wigglestick
aka W. Shakespeare

The story is good, very suspenseful. Orson Welles does a good job but Edward G. Robinson shines as usual. Every part he plays he becomes the character and makes you believe. Incredibly versatile and probably my very favorite actor. The Stranger is suspenseful but kind of drags on at times. Not one of the best, but a good effort.

Despite some rather misguided nitpicking levied in previous reviews here -- which could easily be rebutted point-by-point --this is a very fine film. Any ten minutes of this movie contains more plot, and delivers more suspense, than 99% of modern tripe that meets with great box office success. While I did find Welle's penciling out a crude timeline a bit implausible, most other criticisms seem to reveal a lack of understanding of the time during which this film was made. Perhaps, that's because they didn't live during that time, or even in the 1950's or '60's. In a society that's almost completely lost its moral compass -- one which hopes to sanction every form of degenerate union as a "marriage," for example -- it's no wonder why some cannot fathom why Loretta Young would behave in such a protective manner. Even nowadays, though probably not for such noble reasons, you'd still find spouses who would do anything to protect their mate. I think most would agree that the inclusion of this aspect in the plot is hardly a stretch, because it isn't one at all.In addition to appreciating the work of EG Robinson and Oscar Welles, I've always loved Loretta Young. Some of my earliest memories of movies and TV in the 1950's inculde those of her. What a lovely woman, on par with Gail Russell in terms of being extremely beautiful - even downright sexy - while having a genuine air of purity and delicious femininity about them. Women like this are all but nonexistent these days, having been replaced by...well, you know. Just watch a little TV, peruse a magazine stand, or take a good look around at the supermarket and what do you see? Nose rings, tatoos, hairy legs, flannel shirts, butch haircuts, foul mouths, and the list goes on. Trash, tramps, and transvesties in large part, completely lacking in femininity. Brainwashed by modern culture, it's not "politically correct" for a woman to be feminine these days, and thus we arrive at the root of the problem. Personally, I very much enjoyed this film on many levels. Likewise, I wish there were more films that truly offered mystery, suspense, and intrigue, such as this one does.
FIVE STARS!