MARIO GAUCI The notorious Jack The Ripper killings have been dealt with by the movies in both ostensibly authentic and outright fictional terms. This one falls in the latter category, and is actually no fewer than the fourth adaptation (all of which I own and have now watched) of Marie Belloc-Lowndes' novel THE LODGER! Incidentally, though a Fox production, the film has somehow fallen into the Public Domain and, in fact, the print I acquired (presumably culled from the substandard VCI DVD) left a lot to be desired! While generally enjoyable (in spite of the obvious lack of surprise) and benefiting immensely from Jack Palance's typically intense central performance (making up for the undercasting of the other major roles), the end result does feel redundant – considering that the latest version was only 9 years away – in much the same way that the 1932 Talkie came across with respect to Alfred Hitchcock's 1927 Silent original! Interestingly, while the first two – both emanating from Britain and starring the same leading man, Ivor Novello – made the protagonist out to be an avenger of one of the Ripper's victims being himself suspected of the crimes, in each American remake, there is no question about his identity as the guilty party (Laird Cregar had essayed the role in 1944)! The least successful element here, then, is undoubtedly the scoring and staging of the eye-rolling (in more than the expected ways) musical numbers.

nomoons11 I didn't have high hopes for this one. I'm not much of a Jack Palance fan but in this, his film personality works to his advantage.Murders are gripping the city of Whitechapel and by coincidence, a mysterious Lodger comes to let a room. He carries a black bag and wears a Ulster. The landlady thinks him odd but she rents him 2 floors. The 2nd for his sleeping and the Attic...for his "experiments". He meets the landlady's daughter and he's smitten but he has a problem with her, he doesn't care too much for actresses. Not all, but most of the Ripper murders are, or were, actresses. Could he be the one? I was thoroughly surprised at how much they let the suspense go on until the end. The keep you guessing until it's over. Jack Palance finally has a role he can really fit in. He does a real good job of playing the "could" be Ripper. The real tragedy of the film is Constance Smith. Reading about her life after she left film (not long after this), is sad. I think so because she has some real screen presence. She is the light of this film. I mean she is just perfect as the daughter and she has some real personality. It's a shame she didn't accomplish more than she did. "Aunt Bee" has a role also and she's quite good as the nosy landlady.Just give this one a try and see I'm right. You may think you've seen all the Jack the Ripper films but try this and and you'll get a really nice surprise. Really well done. Right up until the end you'll be asking yourself..."Is Jack Palance the Ripper?...or isn't he?"

Zeegrade A young Jack Palance (even when he's young he looks old) is the mysterious Mr. Slade who rents a room from Aunt Bea and her husband while conducting various experiments in the attic. His late night comings and goings raises suspicion that he in fact might very well be Jack the Ripper. If there is any doubt that he is the Ripper himself from the first scene forward than Man in the Attic will politely beat you over the head with various red flags. While not murdering local drunks and prostitutes (Ooops, Did I spoil it?) Slade becomes smitten with Lily the niece of the husband and wife he is renting the rooms from. Unfortunately for Jack, I mean Slade, Inpsector Warwick of Scotland Yard falls head over heels in love with Lily as well while investigating one of Slade's (Damn! Did it again!) the Ripper's murder of Lily's friend. It doesn't help Slade's hatred of women when he find out that Lily is a local vaudeville star that flaunts off her various wares to men on a weekly basis. Just imagine Britney Spears circa late nineteenth century. By the way, the musical performances by Lily, while not bad, just seem so out of place in this movie considering the contents of the plot. Man in the Attic has plenty of solid performances though most of the American actors didn't even attempt an English accent which is kind of bizarre. Constance Smith is quite fetching as Lily Bonner and nobody has more intimidating screen presence than Jack Palance who towers over his fellow actors. My one main concern is that this movie never once creates any suspense and it makes no attempt to throw you off path which is essential to films like this. The fact that I have to give a spoiler alert is downright laughable as it was clear who Slade really was from the moment he appeared on screen. Yes, Slade was Jack the Ripper. Believe it or not!

rixrex Not a very unique nor special film in any way, and very typical early 1950s Hollywood fare with a back-lot version of London, and plenty of French can-can style dancing for titillation.Not boring either, and Jack Palance is fine as the mysterious lodger who may or may not be Jack the Ripper. But he's done better, and is not a good enough reason to pick up this film. In fact, the only particularly good reason to pick it up is if you wish to collect all varieties of Jack the Ripper films available, or if you want the double-feature Midnight Movie release of it because it also has the superior thriller, A Blueprint for Murder.