I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

the audience applauded

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

This was the last entry in the Columbia Pictures' "Whistler" B movie series, for reasons I have not been able to uncover. Maybe audiences missed series star Richard Dix, who had retired because of health problems. But while Dix might have added some of his usual spark as he did in the previous entries, as it is, this is a pretty good B movie and a good way to end the series. It gets going pretty early on, quickly adding mysterious touches that will get you wondering just what is going on. And there are some good twists, though I did guess what the private detective character was eventually going to do towards the Michael Duane character about a third of the way into the movie. Probably you'll guess it too, if you've seen the other movies in the series. Aside from that, the movie works nicely and fits the 63 minute time limit pretty well - there's no unnecessary fat in this story. If you liked the other movies in this series, you should like this final bow.

The "Whistler" series of mysteries in the 1940s was one of the immediate ancestors of "film noir." The stories were usually dark, the characters were morally ambiguous, and the shadowy, anonymous narrator ("I am the Whistler") added an extra touch of creepiness.This last entry in the series is different from the others. It's lighter, in both senses of the word. Though it's an adequate "B" mystery, it's no grimmer than an Agatha Christie film. The difference is partly due to the writing and directing, but the absence of Richard Dix, the aging former star who played the leads in the previous films, is a big factor. Dix had a "noir" persona if ever there was one. He looked like a man haunted by the past and worried about the future. Here he's replaced by fresh-faced young Michael Duane, who just doesn't have the same gravitas.The plot is a variation on a familiar theme. A man's new fiancée vanishes, and he quickly realizes how little he really knows about her. The more he learns what seems to be the truth, the more it makes sense simply to forget all about her, but he can't get past the feeling that somebody is lying to him.The mystery woman is played by Lenore Aubert, who was sort of the poor man's Hedy Lamarr in the 1940s. She's supposed to be a French widow here, though she doesn't sound terribly French. (She was actually born in Slovenia and raised in Austria, and her Gallic-sounding screen name was dreamed up by Hollywood.)This is a decent little crime story, but it's not representative of the "Whistler" movies. If you don't happen to like it, at least give another film in the series a look.

This was the eighth and final Columbia Whistler film and the only one without Richard Dix who had retired from movies and was to die the following year. It's still a competent thriller, the machine carried on without him perfectly, but – something was missing: Dix! The stories in the Whistler series were always interesting, sometimes brilliant, the screenplays often noir always atmospheric, but it wasn't only the Whistler himself that hung it all together on screen, Dix did too.Young couple stepping out for a whole fortnight get the urge to marry in the pouring rain but are thwarted when the potential bride first disappears then is discovered to already be married before she apparently goes mad. Is the potential groom put off, even when the private dick he's hired to find her suddenly slugs him and lams, or is love blind? Who's twisting who is the question. Michael Duane in his penultimate film is OK if a bit of a wimp, lovely Lenore Aubert's finest moments came next film in Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, and Richard Lane was wonderful as ever on loan from Boston Blackie. Also the only outing where the Whistler himself must have got wet from slouching about in the rain, unless he got sprayed with sea foam in Voice.A lot happened in this last hour, well worth watching over and over again as usual to fans of the genre like me. The Whistler radio series begun in 1942 carried on until 1955 clocking up nearly 700 half hour shows, nearly all of which are available on mp3 and based upon what I've heard so far nearly all of which are well worth listening to as well.

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.