Interesteg What makes it different from others?

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

MartinHafer The Whistler series was an excellent B mystery series from the 1940s. Each of the films had starred Richard Dix...but in 1947 he had a heart attack and was in ill health until his death in 1949. But the studio wanted to carry on the series and brought us "Return of the Whistler"...a similar but Dix-less installment in the series. It turned out to be the last in the series as well. Additionally, the exciting director William Castle directed most of the Whistler films...though not this one.The mystery in this film is a good one. When Ted (Michael Duane) and his fiancée, Alice (Lenore Aubert), arrive at a hotel, things seem pretty normal. But when Ted leaves and then returns, he finds Alice missing--and the hotel desk manager is lying about her leaving on her own. But who took her...and why?! Well, the solution turns out to be very interesting...and well worth seeing.Despite the stars of this film being pretty much complete unknowns, the film works well because the acting is good AND, most importantly, the mystery is very well written and engaging. Overall, actually one of the better entries in the series...and it's a shame this was the last.

mark.waltz by the end of the 1940's, the entrance of television into American households cause movie-going audiences to drop weekly box office since they could watch many of the same type of shows at home for free. One of the first movie genres to be affected was the crime series, low budget B pictures that often at the bottom of a bill. After eight films, "The Whistler" series ended its four year run with a new leading man, Michael Duayne, replacing Richard Dix. Obviously younger than Dix, Dwayne was more realistic being cast opposite the younger leading ladies, and in this film, he is quite good, having been in previous installments of the series in supporting roles.The plot is very film noir like in atmosphere, dealing with Duane on the verge of marrying his French sweetheart, Lenore Aubert, and various circumstances end up getting in the way of their getting hitched. Hwr sudden disappearance brings on more mystery, and along the way Duane is introduced to a series of odd characters who seemingly have sinister motivations that Duane completely understand. Among the standouts in the supporting cast are Ann Shoemaker as a seemingly sweet but devious matriarch and Olin Howland is a rather obnoxious hotel clerk. Hints of something big going on will keep you glued, making this one of the better entries in the series which deserved a longer run or at least a T.V. series of its own.

Cristi_Ciopron 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.

gridoon2018 The last film in the "Whistler" series, and the only one not to star Richard Dix. He probably missed this one due to health problems, but the truth is the main character here was too young for him - maybe he could have played the private detective instead. Anyway, "The Return Of The Whistler" is neither the best ("Mark Of The Whistler" or "Voice Of The Whistler") nor the worst ("Mysterious Intruder") of the series. It is well-produced (it looks more like an A- than a B+ movie), and has an intriguing first half where the viewer doesn't know who to trust or what to believe, but the second half is more straightforward, and just a tad underwhelming. On the whole, "The Whistler" series lived up to its reputation for me as being one of the best mystery series of old Hollywood. **1/2 out of 4.