The Return of the Whistler (1948)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

A Masterpiece!

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

A melodramatic crime movie about deceit, imposture, greed, its asset is the plot, coming from a revered writer, and it takes us through rain, an inn, a mansion, a hospice, its direction is somewhat impersonal but reasonably skilled, mostly serviceable, the director being one of the labourers of that age, here he followed the age's new trend, the new style (I felt grateful for being spared of the allegedly humorous moments that plagued crime movies made a decade earlier …), in his rendering is defined by a light sobriety, and I think his movie would prove of interest to the writer's buffs, with the necessary caveat that it's more of an impersonal crime movie, than of a faithful transposition of a work, it has the plot, but not the writer's very peculiar atmosphere; I sympathized with the detective, I disliked the psychiatrist, and the leading actor reminded me of a C. Grant impersonator.A shocking moment is the attack of the watchdog.This movie could of been much more; the opportunity has been wasted. The feverishness of the writer's ideas has been mitigated, stumped, dimmed, blunted. Notwithstanding, the storytelling is suspenseful and dynamic.The moments of artistic truth or at least authentic craftsmanship were expect-ably few; in the '30s, many directors preferred to crowd the tropes, to throng them, than to make good use of a few, they practically left them unused, and if here the writer's universe seems impoverished, it's because the director had this mindset. On the other hand, the tone here was sober. It already had been a radio program, a few yrs later it would of made a cool TV series.

"The Whistler" really didn't go anywhere, he's here, whistling his mournful dirge and giving us the lowdown on the case at hand. The difference is that Richard Dix was replaced by Michael Duane as the main character in this, the last of the series.The good news is that this one is an entertaining, spellbinding story for 50 mysterious minutes. The bad news is that the picture lasts for 60 minutes, and begins to fall apart towards the end. I often think that authors and screenwriters start with a terrific idea for a story and then can't figure out how to end it (exhibit A is "Harvey").I thought Michael Duane was a good main figure and did a creditable job in this film, but then disappears soon after from motion pictures. Boston Blackie fans will recognize Richard Lane, who played Insp. Farraday in that series. This was a good entry in "The Whistler" series, before losing some credibility in the last 10 minutes. In fact, it was very good, for the first 50.

This being the final entry in the superlative Whistler series, I was expecting a dud. But it's not. Overall, the movie is definitely second rank but still representative of many of the series' better elements. The mystery sets up quickly as prospective bride (Aubert) disappears from her hotel room, leaving prospective groom (Duane) wondering what went wrong. After all, she seemed so sincere and loving. The hotel clerk (Howland, I believe) is worse than no help and may make you glad for Motel 6. The mystery deepens as detective Lane turns up clues and things begin to appear not as expected.Duane is serviceable in the lead, replacing series regular Richard Dix. More importantly, I'm not sure how well the aging, dissipated Dix could have matched up with the innocent bridegroom role, anyway. What the entry lacks is the trademark provocative ending and the suffused atmosphere that characterize the William Castle directed entries, suggesting that Castle was more formative to the series' overall excellence than perhaps thought.Still, it's puzzling to me that the series ended so abruptly, even without Dix. The material certainly reflected popular noirish programming of the period, so I would surmise that an audience was there. Perhaps there's an inside story. Nonetheless, in my little book, The Whistler series remains the most memorably unusual to emerge from the movie- drenched 1940's, even if this entry falls short.

I hate reading reviews that say something like, 'Don't waste your time, this film stinks on ice.' It does to that reviewer yet for me, it may have some sort of naïve charm. If you like the other 'Whistler' series films, this one will be watchable. If you like 40s noirish films, this one will be watchable.This film is not as good, in my opinion, as any of the earlier series entries which starred Richard Dix as the protagonist. It's much slower, and the plot is trite. You've seen this same narrative device used in many other films, and usually better.But the acting is good, and so is the lighting, and the dialog. It's just lacking in energy and you'll likely figure out exactly what's going on and how it's all going to come out in the end not more than a quarter of the way through.The 'Whistler' series is semi-noir, and there character, mood, lighting, camera movement and angles are more important than the story itself. But this film is not noir. It's too light weight and Hollywood innocent for that. Neither Richard Dix's character nor those of any of his ladies in the previous films had to come to a good end. You just never knew until the end.But still, I'll recommend this one for at least a single viewing. I've watched it at least twice myself, and got a reasonable amount of enjoyment out of it both times.