Mysterious Intruder

Fifth in the Noirish Whistler film series (and the third Directed by William Castle) is a so-so effort despite a decent enough premise. A kindly old shopkeeper (Paul E. Burns) is looking for a young girl (Pamela Blake) who disappeared suddenly after a family tragedy seven years before. He's been holding some valuables for her. The shopkeeper hires a shady Private Investigator (Richard Dix) to find the young girl. Soon enough, a Model (Helen Mowry), a street thug (Mike Mazurki), a hotel manager (Regis Toomey) and the cops are on the case. At barely an hour, Eric Taylor's script never fleshes out the characters. It's purely a plot driven vehicle. Unfortunately, the P.I. is such a dreary lunkhead of a character that even the twists in the tale don't land. I like Dix in a number of movies, but he isn't able to lift the part. Castle's Direction has a few minor touches and Cinematographer Philip Tannura does a decent job under the circumstances. MYSTERIOUS INTRUDER, with it's P.I. focused story may more claim to being Noir than some of the other Whistler films (I do love that mysterious shadowy figure), but, it's still more of a crime melodrama - and, a second rate one at that.

Here's another fine entry in Columbia's noirish Whistler series, the fifth chronologically, and fourth directed by soon-to-be schlockmeister William Castle. Like the first in the series, Castle imbues the film with an especially sleazy atmosphere. The shadowy b&w photography, threatening background detail and desperate lowlife characters evince a cynical view of the urban world, and the writers obliquely hint at sordid relationships and motivations which simmer below the surface of the story. Series lead actor Richard Dix, normally emotively challenged, gives a rather eccentric interpretation of a venal, socially inept gumshoe seeking a big score, who is ironically given the opportunity for redemption. Buffs will certainly savor the parade of iconic supporting actors like Mike Mazurki and Charles Lane. Much better than one would expect from a mystery series, this picture reflects the seamy side of life usually glossed over by the Hollywood veneer.

The 1940's were full of private eyes from Sam Spade to Phillip Marlowe. None, however, equals the sheer sleaze of key-hole peeper Don Gale. He's a distinctive creation of writer Eric Taylor's clever little screenplay, with more twists and turns than one of those old Toni home permanents. The brief opening between Gale and his secretary tells all we need to know about his brand of professional ethics and is a great bit of subtle innuendo. Richard Dix is perfect as Gale with all the phony charm and shifty eyes of an oily medicine man. If Gale has any redeeming qualities like Spade or Marlowe, I can't find them, making him one of the most unusual lead characters of the day.

The movie starts off posing a neat little mystery-- why would anyone want to kill for some worthless old keepsakes. The solution is a novel one, although the story sometimes unfolds in a complex fashion that's hard to follow.There're some nifty little touches, such as the trigger-happy neighbor who apparently shoots at anything that moves or the safe-house matron who looks like she could go a few rounds with Mike Tyson. However, not everything is roses. Little old man Stillwell should carry a sugar-overload warning, while plug-ugly Mike Mazurki mugs it up shamelessly as the towering menace. The bare-bones street scenes might blemish most movies, but here they come across as just plain cheap like Gale himself.

How surprising that the schlockmeister of 1950's gimmick movies, William Castle, stands as the moving force behind many of these little Whistler gems. He had a real feel for them. Too bad he's identified now with such exploitation flicks as The Tingler (1959) and 13 Ghosts (1960), (Tingler wired certain certain theatre seats for a mild jolt and then insured the patrons! ). Anyway, the ending here is particularly ironical, even for a series that prided itself on irony. As they say, they just don't make 'em like this any more. Too bad.

The fifth of the seven Richard Dix Whistler's is a complicated hard boiled affair, coming in at just under an hour with the usual high quota of dizzying plot twists to keep you on your toes. Although be warned if you've never seen it before the IMDb plot summary just about gives it all away, not the ideal thing to do with these films. Nicely noirish and a good print lend a doom-laden atmosphere which the excellent cast make the most of, and at warp speed.

Seedy private eye Dix is hired by a trusting old shop owner to find his friend a missing girl who has an intriguing if extremely improbable present worth USD 200,000 awaiting her. From there it unravels in the best sleazy Chandleresque fashion, the sequence of events all logical and believable … mostly. Favourite bits: Dix and his lady … friend tracking down and finding manic Mike Mazurki's house at night; the greed in weak-willed but still a goodie Dix's eyes when the real Elora Lund shows up. Ker-ching! I believe the Whistler himself was never as amused as by the ending of this episode judging by his gleeful sneering at the end.

Tremendous fun for the fan, one of my favourites in a series that never failed to deliver.

Up to this point, I found the entries in "The Whistler" series to be enjoyable B movies, but with "Mysterious Intruder", something seems to have gone wrong. Let me make clear that I didn't think that this entry was a terrible movie. But all the same, it doesn't seem to fit with the other entries. For starters, the story is more of a standard B movie detective movie instead of a more suspenseful story. And this particular detective story really requires you to pay close attention - if you are not keeping careful mental notes to what's going on, you'll likely get lost pretty quickly. I will admit that if you're patient enough to sit through the movie, you'll be rewarded with a dark ending that does seem to fit other movies of the series. Those who also like detective dramas of the 1940s probably will get some extra enjoyment as well. But as I said, it isn't really a true "Whistler" movie, and must be considered somewhat of a misfire.