The 4th film of the Columbia series based on the CBS radio program, "The Whistler", finds wealthy John Sinclair, with no health or friends, being advised by his doctor to take a long ... See full summary »
Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
If your account is linked with Facebook and you have turned on sharing, this will show up in your activity feed. If not, you can turn on sharing
here
.
The 4th film of the Columbia series based on the CBS radio program, "The Whistler", finds wealthy John Sinclair, with no health or friends, being advised by his doctor to take a long vacation. Heading for the Great Lakes, he becomes ill in the cab operated by Ernie Sparrow an is taken to a clinic where he meets nurse Joan Martin, who is engaged to intern Fred Graham. Doctors now tell him he has only a few months to live and advise him to go to Maine (where, evidently, it will seem longer.) He asks Joan to marry him, promising to leave her his fortune. She, no dummy, accepts but hard-loser Fred doesn't like it even though she says she is doing it for him. After six months of living in a lighthouse with only Joan and Sparrow, whom he has hired as his aide, Sinclaie seemingly regains his health and has really fallen in love with Joan. She tells him she can no longer tolerate the loneliness just as Fred arrives for a visit, and John invites him to stay. In a chess game, John facetiously ... Written by
Les Adams <longhorn1939@suddenlink.net>
This 1940's gem seems to be a screwy morality play and an ill-conceived cautionary tale combined, put together by some very clumsy writers and a director who evidently took verrrrry long lunches. The characters' motives and behavior are so contrary to basic human nature, so lacking reason, so contrived, so bizarre -- and let's not forget the shoddy police work and questionable medical procedures, not to mention people who trust strangers implicitly -- that the best thing to do is watch it and laugh at it.But it's oddly enjoyable throughout -- for how utterly camp it is.
If "huh?" isn't the word you say most in reaction to this miserable but entertaining little piece of cinema, I'd be very surprised.
2 of 7 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
This 1940's gem seems to be a screwy morality play and an ill-conceived cautionary tale combined, put together by some very clumsy writers and a director who evidently took verrrrry long lunches. The characters' motives and behavior are so contrary to basic human nature, so lacking reason, so contrived, so bizarre -- and let's not forget the shoddy police work and questionable medical procedures, not to mention people who trust strangers implicitly -- that the best thing to do is watch it and laugh at it.But it's oddly enjoyable throughout -- for how utterly camp it is.
If "huh?" isn't the word you say most in reaction to this miserable but entertaining little piece of cinema, I'd be very surprised.