Man in the Attic

Fairly stylish and suspenseful 50's remake of "The Lodger", a story set during Jack the Ripper's reign of terror in London near the end of the 19th century. In one of his earliest film roles, the tall and handsome Jack Palance portrays a quiet and introvert pathologist on the lookout for a room in the center of London. He finds one in the house of Helen and William Harley where he spends most of the time working in the attic. His behavior becomes increasingly strange, especially when he falls in love with the singer/showgirl niece of his landlords. Suspicions arise that the distinguished Mr. Slade is the feared maniac Jack the Ripper. There's very little action in "Man in the Attic", but it's atmospheric and both acted & directed with devotion. Palance looks menacing and mysterious and he receives excellent feedback from his supportive cast, most notably from Rhys Williams as the cynical Mr. Harley. Too bad the film also features two overlong cabaret-like musical sequences, which are really misplaced, and I personally would have preferred some more info and details regarding the Ripper-killings. Not for nowadays horror-audiences, but worth a look in case you're a fan of classy, tension-driven thrillers.

This is a remake of the 1944 "The Lodger", which was a remake of the early Hitchock silent "The Lodger". This one isn't bad but uses most of the dialogue from the 1944 version. Jack Palance gives an excellent portrayal of the lodger who may or may not be Jack the Ripper. Palance has a certain menace here but yet you feel some sympathy for him. That voice should be trademarked!! Constance Smith plays the part of his object of affection/hatred and there is a good performance from Rhys Williams, a long time character actor, as her uncle. It's a little tough getting by Frances Bavier as Smith's aunt since to most TV viewers she will forever be Aunt Bea from Mayberry. Frankly, she can't hold a candle to Sara Allgood in the 1944 version but she passes muster. I found the 1944 version superior to this film due to the presence of Laird Cregar and George Saunders but this remake is worth watching, especially if you are a Jack Palance fan.

Pretty well done. Atmospheric. Jack Palance has always been a presence and he makes a good idiosyncratic villain. His deep eyes and high cheekbones express threat. His acting is quite good and the movie has a nice visual thing going for it. The problem for me is that it is so predictable. It has no surprises. It was compared to Hitchcock's "The Lodger." That film had hidden secrets and red herrings. This fails to deliver those. Jack the Ripper is loose and the British police are doing everything they can to find him. They are very good at blowing whistles when they find the next young woman murdered. Even when they are on to something, they don't do a very good job of making sure of the capture. I enjoyed this because it is so much better than most of these films, and delivers a nice story. it's just not very special.

Man in the Attic is directed by Hugo Fregonese and adapted to screenplay by Robert Presnell Jr. and Barré Lyndon from the novel The Lodger written by Marie Belloc Lowndes. It stars Jack Palance, Constance Smith, Byron Palmer, Frances Bavier and Rhys Williams. Music is by Hugo Friedhofer and cinematography by Lee Tover.

1888, Whitechapel, London, and as the murders continue, perpetrated by the man known as Jack the Ripper, the mysterious Mr. Slade (Palance) rents out the upper rooms of the Harley household...

Jack the Ripper was popular for transference to film and literature even back when the 20th century was born, now in the 21st century nothing has changed. It's a name synonymous with dastardly slaying's in foggy Victorian London, a name that conjures up images of British coppers chasing their tails while Jolly Jack went about his bloody business, only to then vanish like a plume of smoke in the wind.

Marie Belloc Lowndes' novel has been mined a few times, with a couple of film makers following the source and choosing to reveal from the off the Ripper and put "him" front and centre as the antagonist. In fact for this version there is an out and out motive offered up. Fregonese's film lacks the class and quality of production that John Brahm's 1944 version has, or the twist of Hitchcock, but that doesn't mean Man in the Attic should be dismissed. And rightly so.

It lacks a mystery element for sure, that feeling of not knowing for sure the who, whys, motives and means etc, but it doesn't lack for atmosphere, period design or strong leading man performance. This is very much one for fans of fog bound cobbled streets, of gas lamps and watery canal side blackness. Where coppers sport a truncheon as their major weapon, the whistle their call to arms. That the murders are off screen and thrust into our mind's eye is also a select film fan requirement, as too is the odd leap of faith as regards stupidity of none Ripper characters. But this does a fine job for those inclined towards such Victorian eeriness.

Musical interludes halt the mood, even though they please (and stimulate as regards Smith's wonderful legs), yet it also brings to light a community trying to carry on with wine and a song as blood was adorning those cobbled streets outside. This is far from perfect as a Ripper thriller, yet still it has much to recommend for a viewing on a dark winters night. 7/10

This is a frustrating movie although worth a watch if you have the time to spare and the subject interests you. For me it isn't a patch on Hitchcock's early The Lodger which also starred the divine Ivor Novello and is thrilling let alone Novello is a feast to the eyes and so is the charming heroine and the whole movie is compulsive viewing. I very much want to see the slightly different talkie version that Novello made a few years later but it seems unobtainable.

Palance does a good take on the Lodger in Man in the Attic and is far nearer to the original book than Hitchcock's movie, but Palance has a hard time with the general lack of excitement in the movie. It lacks tension and drama although it tries hard. Difficult to say where the problem lies but making the heroine a successful and famous vaudeville star admired by the Prince of Wales really is a disaster, it doesn't work at all, let alone the original heroine Daisy has become just a parlourmaid and there's a new heroine, niece Lilly. The heroine's musical numbers really jar - they are completely irrelevant, and worse, they are rather vulgar, being can-can style dance - great fun in the right kind of movie but quite unsuitable for this one and I fastfowarded through those scenes. The policeman who fancies Lilly isn't as good as he should be somehow.

Given that this movie seems to have been made in Hollywood - the confusion of accents - it does indeed have a good East London feel about it. So worth watching but better if you haven't already seen Hitchcock's excellent and famous movie.

By the way, the book by Marie Belloc-Lowndes is very good reading.