Despite a seemingly extreme requirement for suspension of disbelief at times, this film should rank much higher within its category. The story is sound and intricate, and certainly tight enough for the day. Where it is over-told, it only reflects convention. No one should miss Welles' performance, or Natalie Wood's first turn on screen. She is already mesmerizing, and her ability with languages amazing. I saw her name in the credits, but without calculating age, expected a teenager. But the second time she appeared, and smiled, I recognized her immediately and was stunned with her performance (compare most modern child performances on diction, delivery and command of emotion). <br /><br />Colbert seems able to anchor any movie. She isn't a character actress and lacks the range of a Bette Davis, certainly, but her effortless portrayal of her own humanity always grounds the story, and she seems to catalyze and enhance the other performances (a rare and subtle talent).<br /><br />Rather than retell the story or cover similar ground, I will comment on a couple of points.<br /><br />I did feel that Colbert was convinced at the end by Welles that he was not her husband John, my only doubt being the denouement when her possession of his daughter, Natalie Wood, and her exit, is so perfunctory. But even then, she shows no curiosity whatsoever about the apartment, where we know the proof exists. And this is a relatively rare example of a multiply-ending film in the 40's (could have logically ended 3 or 4 times). Each of the final scenes would necessarily be succinct--BUT would deliver any important information. And her knowing at the end would turn this drama into a melodrama, because it would have shoved her back into her grief through the end, which is I believe not the intention. <br /><br />But most significantly, if the writer or director intended that she knew, it would have been telegraphed in those days. In fact, there was nothing at all in Colbert's performance to indicate she was maintaining secret knowledge after their conversation. <br /><br />Colbert not recognizing Welles is answered by the technical conventions of the day. The complaints here really are saying that WE cannot see a drastic difference in appearance, which we could expect now. Without extreme makeup or even digital effects (a la Forrest Gump), audiences of that day would have simply accepted having been told he was horribly disfigured (theater convention). They would thereafter assume it as fact and imagine it. In the hospital in Austria, the dialog between the doctor and Welles solidly informs us that he is injured beyond recognition. The doctor even mentions plastic surgery, almost science fiction for that time.<br /><br />Overall, though the plot and theme may seem hackneyed today--and if remade would certainly leave more on the editing floor--the story is skillfully structured, acted and directed and for sure worth a watch by anyone interested in classic movies.