The Mark of the Whistler (1944) User Reviews

What's in a name?

[Spondonman · 8/10 · 20 May 2007]

This was the second of the eight self-contained Whistler films starring Richard Dix, still playing a goodie but this time with more bad in him. Also after the first my second favourite entry in the series.

Lee Nugent – mark that name – is a human derelict who hits upon the idea of impersonating a man whose bank is advertising for him to appear and claim his dormant bank account. He doesn't initially know how much money is involved but when he does get it he gives Porter Hall a fair price for the loan of his suits … Things start to get complicated when he bumps into Limpy the match seller and a determined newspaper reporter played by Janis Carter – just before she played a determined newspaper reporter in One Mysterious Night! Favourite bits: Signing his name but blotting his middle initial in the bank; Some of the sinister scenes with John Calvert chasing after Dix. The overall moral is Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide, with Dix you can believe it too. With one twist after another the last one is a little twee but still effective.

No cgi cartoonery, swearing, sex or violence, just b&w and an intricate story well acted make for a very pleasant hour.

William Castle meets Dostoyevsky

[goblinhairedguy · 7/10 · 20 May 2004]

This entry is the best in this above-average series from Columbia. All the stories had intriguing premises and clever twists, but this one even more so, since it was based on an original by Cornell Woolrich, that master of gloom, fate and paranoia. You definitely won't see the last curveball coming. There's a nice element of "Crime and Punishment"-like guilt infiltrating the protagonist's shady exploits, although it's not directly responsible for his downfall. The material is the essence of noir, but Castle filmed it straightforwardly for the most part. In his early days before churning out his gimmicky horror pics, he knew how to add telling little touches and include fascinatingly offbeat characters on the margins. All the same, one can't help thinking that this might have been a low-budget noir masterpiece along the lines of "Blind Spot" or "Fear in the Night" if the style had been more doom-laden and shadowy.

Not Your Standard Mystery Series Fare

[Cutter-2 · 8/10 · 11 October 2003]

The series is unique in that although Richard Dix stars in the first seven movies in the series he does not play the same character. As a result, each film has to stand on its own merits. There is no opportunity to introduce the audience to a suave character in the first movie or two and then ride the series out with a group of sub-par films. The quality of the movies throughout the series very good. The only character common to each movie is "The Whistler" who "knows many things". In the first movie Dix plays the hero haunted by the death of his wife. In this offering, Dix plays the anti-hero who perpetrates a fraud to come into money that is not rightfully his. He is then pursued by the sons of a man sent to prison by the father of the person with a legitimate claim to the money. Many of The Whistler movies have a unique or surprising "twist" close to the end that significantly changes the expected outcome. This has possibly the best.

Another Whistler film from Castle & Dix

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 15 May 2017]

Second in Columbia's Whistler series starring Richard Dix and directed by William Castle. In each movie, Dix played a different character in a film noir mystery thriller. This time around he plays a bum who tries his hand at identity theft to claim some money that belongs to someone sharing the same name as him. Good support from Porter Hall and Paul Guilfoyle. Dix is solid as our lantern-jawed "hero." Some nice twists & turns in this one. Castle does a fine job building suspense with scenes like when Dix is sitting in the bank, growing uncomfortable with everyone staring at him. I was on the edge of my seat about what's going to happen to this guy for awhile. Is he going to get away with it? Do I want him to get away with it? My only real complaint is the sucky ending, undoubtedly tacked-on because of the Production Code. Still, it's a pretty good B picture that kept my interest throughout.

Banking on a fraud

[russjones-80887 · 6/10 · 13 October 2020]

A drifter claims money held in an old bank account for a namesake of his. Soon he finds himself the target of two men who turn out to be the sons of the man's old partner, who was sent to prison because of a conflict with him over the money in that account.

The second in the low budget Whistler series from Columbia but, at just under an hour's running time, this is a surprisingly watchable film. The storyline flows and there are several twists along the way. Stars Richard Dix.

Very engrossing, if a bit too heavy on the coincidences

[gridoon2024 · 7/10 · 17 February 2013]

The second entry in the "Whistler" series is extremely engrossing to watch, with some terrific scenes along the way (like Dix mistaking the siren of an ambulance for that of a police car coming to get him, or a man talking in the middle of the night and only his hat and his eyes being visible), but it gets a little carried away at the end with its plot coincidences (example: the time and location of the car crash). Then again, you can attribute all that to "fate", which seems to be a recurring theme of the series. Richard Dix is very good here - he makes you want him to get away with his fraud; Janis Carter brings glamor and a rather modern attitude to her relatively small part. *** out of 4.

It pays at the end!

[MovieStakes · 6/10 · 11 July 2021]

The mark of the whistler 1944

Film noir, by definition, deals with crime and that too in a stylised way. These films galore in Hollywood in the 40s to 60s period. One such film is this.

The story is narrated by an incognito narrator (the whistler) and is about a stone broke man who gets into the hotseat due to his greed for easy money. The storyline is simple, characters are very few and the filming is seamless. The suspense is kept intact, though it isn't a 'whodunit'. The protagonist gets his share for his part on the day of reckoning and there is one major suprise in the end too. Roughly an hour long, this drama is worth watching and you wouldn't regret it.

Be careful of who's life you take over....it would be worth less than your own!

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 18 August 2015]

While the first episode of "The Whistler" film series was a very enjoyable film noir (and a great way to start off the series), the second one ranks as practically excellent, totally intriguing from start to finish and filled with ironic laughs that kept my attention and make me want to see how it unfolded. Having played a businessman who decided to have himself bumped off in the first of the series, Richard Dix is now a down-on-his-luck drifter who pretends to be somebody else in order to inherit an unclaimed bequest. But with schemes like this comes risk, and he's paranoid throughout, first by going to the bank to claim the bequest and later on when he realizes that he is being watched. But friendship comes from the strangest of on-lookers, and that is through a crippled panhandler (Paul Guilfoyle) standing outside the bank who overheard his identity when Dix was confronted by reporter Janis Carter.

Porter Hall is excellent as the cynical but naive flophouse operator who allows Dix to stay with him so he can get mail in order to establish his "identity". Every little detail in this "B" film noir is excellent, from the feeling of paranoia that Dix gets from being watched to his relief every time it seems like he's getting away with identity theft. The two scenes in the bank where he makes his claim then later receives the bequest are classics with every detail letter perfect. Even though he's committing a serious crime, there are times where I really wanted him to get away with it. Some great minor character bits, most memorable for me is the scene-stealing Minerva Urecal as (always) a crusty landlady whom Dix gets information from in regards to the building where his identity theft victim used to live. Willie Best, whose "stereotypical" black coward always added some reluctant laughs, shows here that behind that scaredy cat is actually a very smart man, here playing a restroom attendant who helps Dix escape from his pursuers but when confronted by a gun must reveal what he did. You might see a big plot twist coming a mile away, but even when that does happen, it's done in such a wonderfully acerbic way that it makes it all the more better.

Oh the irony!

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 10 September 2021]

Lee Selfridge Nugent (Richard Dix) is introduced as someone who once had power and wealth, but has lost that over time, and due to bad health cannot hold a job and has become a homeless hobo. He looks at a newspaper left on a park bench and sees an ad for unclaimed money at a local bank. The accounts are all said to be over a hundred dollars (about 2000 dollars in 2021 money), and one of the people who has a dormant account left it in trust for her son, who is also named Lee Nugent.

So Lee does some reconnaissance and gets enough backstory on Lee Nugent that he feels he can impersonate him and get his mother's money. But nobody seems to know what happened to the actual Lee Nugent past fifteen years of age. Lee does pull it off. A brief investigation by the bank and the money is his. But it is thirty thousand dollars not just one hundred. In 2021 that would be about 600K.

But Lee's conscience bugs him because he KNOWS the money is not his. Before he gets the money he thinks every cop or guard who stares at him must know about his fraud. But after he gets the money he is a bit too confident. And then he starts noticing strangers staring at him who are not cops or guards. Is he imagining things, or are they wanting to rob him, or is it something more? Watch and find out.

Well directed by William Castle, the camera gets good close ups of the people involved, detracting from the somewhat cheap sets that poverty row Columbia could afford, and allowing the viewer to feel the claustrophobia that Lee is feeling.

This Whistler entry has some great plot twists, as do most of them. Plus The Whistler himself narrates more of the story than he does in later entries. I'd highly recommend this one.

A Typical Woolrichian Story Full of Interesting Twists!!

[kidboots · 8/10 · 20 July 2016]

Apparently Richard Dix wasn't too keen on the Whistler series, he didn't like the characters he often played - oddballs, psychotics etc but the series gave him some of the most challenging roles of his career. This was the second entry in the series (the first, "The Whistler" had Dix as a man who organises an assassination on himself, then frantically tries to find the unknown assailant when his luck changes). Cornell Woolrich had just had paperback editions of his noir classics "Phantom Lady" and "The Black Angel" released and Hollywood once more opened it's doors to him. One of his first assignments was "The Mark of the Whistler" one of the best of the series. Dix plays a vagrant who sees a bank notice for unclaimed money. He finds one of the recipients has his name and so he meticulously does a back ground check and presents himself at the bank to claim the money. Answering questions glibly, it is easy to convince the authorities but what he thought was $100 turns out to be closer to $30,000. With a now familiar plot twist, the Lee Nugent identity he has appropriated seems to have a few secrets of his own.

Outstandingly directed by William Castle, all the flair and verve were present at the start of his career. There are some terrific close-up shots of actors who at that moment don't seem particularly relevant - a crippled peddler (Paul Guilfoyle) who Lee uses as a ruse to prevent his being photographed for the papers. He responds to Lee's kindness but his character reveals hidden twists. Lee is suddenly pursued by some shadowy gangster figures but in true Woolrich fashion "gangsters" is far from the right word. And because his conscience is bothering him from the start Lee sees suspicious looks everywhere - even the customers at the bank (the security guard confides that because of his windfall he is now quite the celebrity)!!

Janis Carter who was to have such a pivotal role in "The Power of the Whistler" had a very back ground role here as a pushy photographer. Even though this film was superior to the first entry, critics had praised the original so much they had almost run out of steam and it wasn't given the kudos it deserved!!

Highly Recommended.

To be Lee Nugent or not to be....that is the question.

[planktonrules · 29 July 2016]

Like all but the final installment of the Whistler films, this one stars Richard Dix...and just like in several others, he's a bit of a scum-bag. When the film begins, he is a drifter and happens upon an interesting con. He's just learned about a tragic fire back in 1912 and a surviving boy was left without a family following this. A few years later, this Lee Nugent disappeared from his foster home...and no one's seen him since. However, there is a dormant bank account and armed with some inside information, the drifter decides to impersonate Nugent and collect. But how much? And, is it possible without any documentation that he'll be able to pull off this scam?! And, might he be walking into a deadly situation by claiming to be Nugent? Well, like in "Date Night", the anti-hero in this film learns the hard way that taking another's identity is not all it's cracked up to be!

All in all, this is an exciting installment...though what occurs to 'Nugent' isn't exactly a surprise...even the surprise twist at the end. However, the acting is nice and the direction likewise. Because of this, it makes for a diverting B movie. Not one of the best in the series but still quite good.

I prefered the TV series

[searchanddestroy-1 · 15 December 2022]

I don't know exactly why, But I prefer the series thru TV stuff, made in the fifties. Different stories but also lead characters each time, much gloomy and surprising too. I commented many of them in the past. This one, made for big screen release, I discovered it thirty years ago, before I knew the TV show. I liked it because it was made by William Castle, in his early years, before he went to direct westerns and adventure yarns for the infamous Sam Katzman at Columbia. Later he went to Universal for some crime films, then he found his best style in horror movies, but with his own trademark, very special trademark. He will remain famous for those horror features. So this movie is not the best of the whole, as far as I remember, and Richard Dix is surely the best help. The topic is intelligent, above average, in a way surprising, at least not the usual grade Z common junk. Only the ending is a disappointment. That's it, in the episodes of this series, there were more twists than in the long length movies. The audiences were not the same: home for TV and movie theaters for those who paid their tickets. And that explains many many things.