sinful-2 I think the idea of the movie was good and the and interesting. But that all the movie practically is one long flashback told by Dr. Mark Davidson who we see in panic in the start does take some of the excitement out of the movie. It is a bit like reading the last chapter in a book first to see if you want to read the rest.That said I think the idea was good enough and I could live without knowing how, why, and who. The actors did a fine job too. The movie is not fast paced and it is talky. I did not mind it being talky but would have liked more filling as there was a clear hint where it would end. All in all I do not regret watching it. I have seen both much better and much worse sci-fi.I would recommend to sci-fi lovers that care more about story than special effects and do not mind that the movie is a bit talky.

galaxie-2 Not a review of this excellent film but, rather, a correction to a few statements made by others...Some people consider UNEARTHLY STRANGER to be an uncredited rip-off of a 1936 science-fiction novel written by William M. Sloane III entitled TO WALK THE NIGHT. After hearing about that, I obtained a copy of Sloane's novel and read it in detail. I can assure you that, while one concept in the movie bears a "slight" similarity to Sloane's book, the overall story and form of execution in UNEARTHLY STRANGER are very different and would not present any grounds for an accusation of plagiarism on the part of the filmmakers. (If this could be interpreted as such, then many writers would have sued THE TWILIGHT ZONE for using similar ideas from their stories and had it pulled off the air.) In UNEARTHLY STRANGER, the scientist's wife is an alien taking physical form by means of mental projection. In TO WALK THE NIGHT, the body of a young retarded woman is possessed by an alien's mind. That, beyond the use of a spiral staircase in an utterly different kind of location and maybe the use of a kind of ethereal fire to destroy evidence, is the only major similarity between the two stories--but it is tangential at best.Also, UNEARTHLY STRANGER is *not* based on a story written by actor Jeffrey Stone. The film's writing credits read "Based on an IDEA by Jeffrey Stone". To us writers, that identifies a huge difference. Furthermore, there is no published record anywhere of a story called BEYOND THE STARS by Jeffrey Stone.Many people familiar with Rex Carlton's work believe him incapable of writing such an intelligent script as the one found in UNEARTHLY STRANGER. But Carlton actually was associated with higher quality films earlier in his career (late 1940's & early 1950's), so one can only presume that the initial screenplay for UNEARTHLY STRANGER is still dominantly his work (though it obviously received uncredited polishing by the British filmmakers prior to shooting).

JohnHowardReid Despite its current unavailability, Unearthly Stranger enjoys a considerable cult following among dedicated sci-fi fans—and no wonder! Admittedly very low budget, but nonetheless highly entertaining, this movie represents science fiction horror at its very best. True, the basic idea seems at first a trifle ridiculous, but it's developed with such logic, precision and acumen employing sharply dramatic dialogue and intriguing situations, it quickly becomes both meaningful and acceptable. In fact the suspense was so electrifying, my palms were sweating, my hair prickling. I wanted to get up and turn the lights on, but I couldn't move. My eyes were riveted to the screen. The cast is small, but this concentration enhances rather than dispels atmosphere. All the acting comes across as uniformly excellent, with every performer contributing outstanding work. Director Krish is obviously a television graduate, yet here the close-ups are not only strikingly handled and dramatically most effective but used with both imagination and economy. Krish actually knows when to use close-ups and when to fall back on long shots and medium angles. Believe me, this is a rare quality among television men!

heathblair A fairly slender story is provided with meat thanks to naturalistic dialogue delivered by a good cast. All the principle performers bring real commitment and humanity to their roles but, for me, it is Phillip Stone who stands out. His role as the doubting scientist who slowly realizes that his and his colleagues' work has come under hostile alien scrutiny is given great credibility by this underrated actor (underrated except by Stanley Kubrick who featured him in no less than three out of his thirteen films). The love story element is quite touching and is played for keeps by John Neville and Gabriella Licudi.Memorably eerie things to watch out for are the unblinking aliens and a piping hot casserole casually removed from an oven without gloves! This film makes a good companion piece to Invasion (1966), another low-key British sci-fi film which doesn't sacrifice character exposition to special effects and camp stylistics.