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.

Wealthy Joan Caulfield (Matilda) has her portrait hanging over the fire-place. She's dead. Ted North (Steven) turns up at her house claiming to be her husband but her uncle Claude Rains (Victor) is suspicious. North looks like a Thunderbirds puppet. Secretary Barbara Woodell (Rosalyn) has been murdered in the house but at the moment everyone thinks it is suicide. Or do they? Things need investigating. And who's that getting on a plane….it looks like Caulfield. The film has a glossy, stylish feel to it and you can probably guess what's going on after a bit of initial trial and error. After about an hour, you are in no doubt as to what is going on and it is from about this point where everything becomes clear. And another couple of bodies show up. However, up to this point, I found it confusing. It's badly cast and badly written although still interesting to watch.Who cast Audrey Totter alongside Constance Bennett and dressed them in a similar fashion? They look the fricking same, you ass-holes! Result – audience confusion from the beginning. Also, it is not until about one hour when we discover what the relationships are between Caulfield, Totter and Rains. I'm still not sure I understand it. Are Totter and Caulfield sisters? Very sloppy story-telling. Again, result – audience confusion from the beginning.There's nothing too original about the story and Thunderbirds puppet man is pretty creepy to look at. Rains is good as always. His short stature seems to be highlighted – again poor casting - and it's also pretty obvious who the baddie is given the atmospheric clues, use of dark and shade, timely appearances, etc. You watch it and that's it, really. It's OK.

I have a problem with murder mysteries that aren't really mysteries, where the murderer is known from the start - because then, it's not a mystery, it's a cat-and-mouse game. You know that, sooner or later, the murderer will be caught (think "Dial M For Murder").But even though it's not mysterious, "The Unsuspected" still works, due mainly to an outstanding script and a superlative cast. I don't know why it was a flop when it was first released - some reviewers feel it was too like "Laura", but apart from the portrait on the wall, I disagree.I never took a movie course, but as some else once alluded to, I know what I like. This picture holds the interest throughout and a crucial ingredient here is the cast, headed by Claude Rains, who I can't remember ever giving a bad performance, and by everyone's favorite B-girl, Audrey Totter, here in an 'A' picture. She is one of Hollywood's treasures. The rest of the cast is first-rate, with the exception of Joan Caulfield, who was bland and a cut below the rest. Can't figure out why she got top billing.Despite a couple of plot holes that can be overlooked, this is worth your time. There is still an element of tension and suspense even though you know the murderer from the outset. I love surprises, especially in films in which you don't expect one.

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.