Skunkyrate Gripping story with well-crafted characters

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

XhcnoirX Due to circumstances, Michael Duane and Lenore Aubert have to check into a hotel so they can get married the next day. Still unmarried, and needing to get his car fixed, Duane decides to search for a garage and pick up Aubert the next morning. The next morning however, he discovers his fiancé checked out of the hotel minutes after he left, which he cannot believe. Private detective Richard Lane overhears the conversation and decides to help him track down his fiancé. They drive back to Duane's apartment for some photos to help Lane. At the apartment Duane finds Aubert's old marriage license, she's a widow. When he hands over the photos and the license to Lane, Lane knocks him out cold and takes off! When he comes to, Duane realizes Aubert must be caught in something dangerous and heads for the estate of her dead husband, to find a clue...Based on a short story by Cornell Woolrich, this was the last of the Whistler movies, and the only one without Richard Dix, who was in bad health (and would die the next year). It's still a worthy entry in the series, even if some of the twists are not too surprising. Duane, who had already co-starred in a another Whistler movie ('The Secret Of The Whistler') and Aubert do a decent job, as does the rest of the no- name cast. Aubert, who plays a French woman, does tend to forget her French accent quite often. Random trivia: uncredited actor Fred F. Sears would go on to direct many movies himself including a few noirs like 'Chicago Syndicate'.While it's a B-movie, it's very lean and fast-moving thanks to director D. Ross Lederman ('Strange Alibi', 'Key Witness'), and it has above-average production values with some nice sets. The chiaroscuro cinematography by DoP Philip Tannura ('Key Witness', Edgar J. Ulmer's 'Strange Illusion') is really nice, and also features the necessary shadow of 'The Whistler' in some key scenes. All in all, not a bad way to end the series.

dougdoepke 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.

Michael_Elliott Return of the Whistler, The (1948) *** (out of 4) The seventh and final film in Columbia's series tells the story of a man (Michael Duane) who checks his fiancé (Lenore Aubert) into a hotel room but when he returns the next day she is gone. He eventually tracks her to a strange family who claims the woman is already married but there's more going on. The series certainly ends on a very high note and I have to wonder why more movies weren't made unless they simply weren't making money. Richard Dix is missing but Duane makes for a good leading man and carries the film just fine. Aubert, from Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, turns in a fine performance as does Richard Lane from the Boston Blackie series. What has shocked me the most about this series is that all of the screenplays are "A" level in their style and sharpness. This film offers a lot of nice twists and turns, which make it worth watching for mystery or noir fans.

James Knoppow 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.