The Lodger (2009) Online

Tense film about murders with thrills, chills , suspense and an amazing final . This intriguing and exciting story is based on a successful novel and it deal with a serial killer in L . A . executing his crimes like Jack the Ripper . An enigmatic lodger ( Simon Baker ) living in a Guesthouse whose owners are a grumpy security guard ( Donald Logue ) and his wife ( Hope Davis ), booth of them involved an uneasy relationship . Meanwhile two detectives are investigating a series of grisly neighborhood murders , a veteran Detective ( Alfred Molina ) and a rookie (Shane West).

This is a thrilling story about astonishing murders in West Hollywood whose elusive killer is imitating to Jack the Ripper , it has two converging plot lines with various suspects and red herrings . Story's core is interesting and script is dense with information and drama . Good performance by Hope Davis as the psychologically unstable landlady . Excellent Alfred Molina as troubled Inspector engaged in a cat-and-mouse game and fine Simon Baker as suspect lodger who may or may not be guilty of a series of gruesome killings. The picture is packed with an adequate musical score by John Frizzel and colorful cinematography by David Armstrong . The motion picture is professionally directed by David Ondaatje .

The Jack the Ripper character has been adapted on several occasions for cinema from the silent as ¨Pandora's box (1929) ¨ , multiple versions of ¨Lulu ¨ a prostitute killed by Jack , ¨ From hell (2001) ¨ played by Ian Holm and for TV in which appears as character in numerous series as ¨Jack the Ripper (1988)¨ played by Ray McNally and recently in ¨Sanctuary ¨ played by Christopher Heyerdahl .

When a prostitute is found slain in West Hollywood, the veteran Detective Chandler Manning (Alfred Molina) investigates the case with his rookie partner Street Wilkenson (Shane West). Manning is facing a domestic problem with his wife that had had a nervous breakdown and is interned in an institution and his daughter that blames him for the situation of her mother. Meanwhile, the unstable and disturbed housewife Ellen Bunting (Hope Davis) and her frequently absent husband Bunting (Donal Logue) are facing financial problems and need to rent a guest house in the backyard. When the mysterious writer Malcolm Slaight (Simon Baker) rents the house, Bunting never sees the lodger and believes his wife is fabricating the tenant and her family has given the money to them. When a second hooker is found dead on the street, Manning concludes that the killer is copycatting the crimes of Jack the Ripper and is the same serial-killer that had murdered other streetwalkers seven years ago. Further, he concludes that the criminal Alonzo Rodriguez was wrongly sentenced to death for the murders.

When I decided to watch "The Lodger", my expectation was low and I expected to see a conventional thriller full of clichés. Fortunately I was wrong and I had a great surprise. This low-budget film has a good story and screenplay that keeps the mystery until the very last scene. There are subplots only to create diversion to the viewer and keep the mystery of the identity of the killer. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Inquilino" ("The Lodger")

Serial killers will always be popular because there is a human fascination with the lurid, the sexual and the violent. They epitomize fear, and when making a movie about a copycat serial killer, who better to imitate than the most notorious serial killer of all time, Jack the Ripper? "The Lodger" represents the fourth version of the book by Marie Belloc Lowndes, including one directed by Alfred Hitchcock himself. Although it's nowhere near as good as anything the Master of Suspense put out, it is nonetheless an engaging and twisty mystery.

There are two stories that are at the center of the film, and as the story goes on, they become entwined. First is the story of two detectives, Chandler Manning (Alfred Molina) and Street Wilkensen (Shane West) who are on the trail of a killer who is imitating Jack the Ripper in West Hollwood. Second is the story of a landlady, Ellen Bunting (Hope Davis) who is curious about her new tenant, the attractive but aloof Malcolm (Simon Baker). There are a few subplots thrown in for good measure, but really, these are the only ones that matter.

Actually, that's the film's biggest problem. Writer/director David Ondaatje pads the film out, particularly in the first hour. While this helps camouflage the story's red herrings, the subject matter he includes is rather dull. The soundtrack is also uneven. For the most part, it's a solid and effective homage to the creepy music that one always finds in these sorts of movies. However, there are times when it doesn't work, and instead becomes, of all things, melodramatic! The acting is good all around, though. The cast is predominantly made up of character actors on the edge of stardom. Alfred Molina has worked his way up the ladder for the past 25 years, and is just now earning the top-billing he so justly deserves. Manning is a hard boiled detective with a temper. Molina is no Sam Spade, but I'm glad that the producers took a chance on casting an unusual choice, because Molina is always interesting. His co-star, Shane West, tries to shed his bad-boy image, and while no standout, he's not bad. Indie film favorite Hope Davis is also making headway into mainstream fare, and she's terrific as the mousy Ellen. This was clearly a chance for Simon Baker to cash in on his popularity from his show, "The Mentalist." I haven't seen that, but he caught my attention in the underrated "The Affair of the Necklace." Baker is excellent as the seductive lodger; we can see his soft-spoken charm, but there is always an aura of danger around him, and we can never fully trust him. Also on hand are the always reliable Philip Baker Hall, Rebecca Pigeon (aka Mrs. David Mamet) and Donal Logue (who, like West, is an ER alum). Hall and Pigeon are solid, if underused, but Logue is flat as Ellen's jerk husband.

The film is always interesting to look at. Most noirs of this ilk used black and white film to their advantage, but this is 2009, and the film has to make money (which is surprising coming from an indie film). However, Ondaatje uses the color to his advantage. The noir feeling is still there, but it has an interesting feeling of warmth. And I loved how he and his cinematographer David A. Armstrong filmed the rain; it's just like the golden oldies.

It may not be Hitchcock, but this mystery is still pretty good. We don't know the true identity of the killer until the end, and while there are two main suspects, we also know that we can't rule anyone else out either, which makes things more interesting. And for a movie with no CGI, it's always interesting to look at. And watch.

This I have to admit is a very B-movie. If it were not for the actors in it I wouldn't even call it a C-movie. However the storyline is very engaging. I wouldn't dare compare it to any other movie however and most of the critics have already slammed it because "Hitchcock's version was better" (although this movie has been made by several others as well).

The director has done a fairly good job with the budget he has and has made some very good decisions at least in casting the actors in their roles. The movie is mostly a "copycat" film, but the concepts are still the same. Obviously it is not possible to follow the storyline of "jack the ripper has left England and is now in the United States" as in the original Lodger story because it is now 2009, which in the end doesn't really help or hurt the film at all. It was also nice to see Rebecca Pidgeon in a film again although her character is mostly just thrown in to "tie" the ending together in a "Psycho-esque" kind of way. Donal Logue seems like the typical husband who doesn't SEEM to understand his wife, played by Hope Davis, who may or may not be imagining things. And finally Alfred Molina is basically cast as himself, stubborn, difficult, and determined.

Everyone is a suspect and Ondaatje does a very good job keeping the pace while switching seamlessly between the detectives investigating and the Bunting residence where "The Lodger" is. However, whether or not you feel "cheated" by the end of the film is up to you. I however was not very surprised by the modern day twists that are thrown at the audience in the end. Definitely worth seeing in the theater if you can.

Updated and rethought story of the strange lodger in a home that may or may not be Jack the Ripper. However in this new version the question is the nice man, Simon Baker, renting a room from Hope Davis responsible for the Jack the Ripper like killing in Los Angeles . Alfred Molina is the cop on the trail of the killer. A very well acted film, with everyone hitting the right notes for their parts. The film really isn't a strict retelling of the story, rather it uses bits of the original to launch off in new directions, certainly Hope Davis's damaged landlord never came from Victorian London. Unfortunately the film collapses thanks to two errors in judgment. The first is the script is too much into the realm of cliché when it comes to Molina's story arc. He's the good zealous cop who ends up becoming a scapegoat for the failures of the rest of the police. The material isn't bad, but for a film that is so desperately trying to break the mold of a well worn story that to have him be the only one who understands what's going on and that he gets blamed like almost every other cop drama is too much to ask. It brings everything down. The other problem with the film is that the director is a bit too gimmick happy. Take for example the early sequence where Hope Davis is eating breakfast and the TV is on and you get fancy camera angles through her glass or an increase in volume when the work knife is heard on TV. You also have fast motion and slow motion sequences and shots designed to look cool. The best tricks are the ones we never see, unfortunately with this film every one is revealed as if with a neon sign and fireworks. I spent more time watching the director attempt to be clever then I was watching the police try to figure out who the killer was. This is a film with very good part that are hurt by some very bad ones. Worth a look but only if you don't pay for it.

Marie Belloc's novel, serves once again as the basis of this 2009 treatment that doesn't go anywhere. Partly, the fault lies with the treatment of its well intentioned writer/director, David Ondaatje. His inexperience, perhaps, was the factor that this movie probably went into DVD right away, as it appears the commercial run didn't go anywhere since it must have come and gone without much publicity, or word of mouth.

The locale of the story has been changed from London to a rainy Los Angeles, seen mostly at night. The serial killer who is killing prostitutes in a seedy part of town is following in the steps of Jack the Ripper, the famed English killer. This sick man finds digs in what appears to be an uninhabited garage in the back of a house that has seen better days. The mysterious lodger catches the landlady's fancy; this woman is stuck in a bad marriage. She looks as though she is not dealing with reality, but the attraction the new renter has upon her proves to be too much.

When the dead women begin to surface, detective Chandler Manning has to face guilty feelings because the present killer has the same M.O. as the man he has sent to the electric chair a short time before. Manning has a suspicion the murders follow the same logic as the ones committed almost a century ago in London. His obsession gets the best of him, making him lose perspective.

The picture fails because the way Mr. Ondaatje presents the story. There is no suspense in most of the action. If the viewer happens to be a fan of the genre, he would notice things that will spoil the fun for him. The director doesn't create enough atmosphere to do justice to what he tried to do.

The talented cast is totally wasted. Alfred Molina and Hope Davis are excellent actors, but the way they were asked to portray their characters is not believable. For one, the detective of Mr. Molina, or the vapid landlady of Ms. Davis, will not add anything to their brilliant careers.

I will say that The Lodger kept my attention to the very end and that I was pleasantly surprised by the ending. But most of the story line in the middle was your typical old crime mystery.

Simon Baker plays a mysterious and quirky good looking stranger who knocks on Hope Davis's door in answer to an add for a ROOM FOR RENT sign. Of course Hope Davis takes Simon's cash advance of three months rent and accepts the good lucking Simon Baker as her new tenant.

The mutilated murders of streetwalkers start appearing in a similar fashion of the murders that took place seven years earlier. These previous murders were thought to have ended when Detective Chandler Manning played by Alfred Molina arrested the presumed guilty suspect that was put to death seven years earlier. Now the movie viewers realize that Detective Chandler (Alfred Molina) put away the wrong guy for the crimes.

So the viewers have a few suspects to consider who may be committing these recent murders of streetwalkers that appear to be duplicating the documented murders of the notorious Jack the Ripper. I was not impressed with Alfred Molina's performance as the lead detective Chandler Manning. What kept my interest in the film was the interactions between the lonely and disturbed performance of the landlord played by Hope Davis and her new lodger played quite well by Simon Baker.

Of course no suspense film is complete unless the lead detective is suspended from his position in the biggest case in Los Angeles history for his inability to solve the case. Will he be vindicated? Well for me I just did not feel Alfred Molina was convincing enough as the dejected lead detective, whose daughter and wife were also turning their back on their father and husband respectively.

Without spoiling the ending I will say that I found the ending to have a few twists in it that I expected and some twists that I was not expecting. I rated the film a 5 out of 10 because the plot was generally predictable and Alfred Molina's performance as the lead detective a bit disappointing. If not for a strong performance by Hope Davis and Simon Baker the film would have my thumbs down. I give THE LODGER one thumb UP!

This is not really a remake of the previous movies concerning a mysterious lodger at an Inn that might be Jack the Ripper. This takes place in modern Los Angeles, and concerns a couple that need to rent their guest house, and the Wife (Hope Davis) rents to a mysterious stranger that might be responsible for a series of Jack the Ripper type murders occurring. Alfred Molina is the detective in charge of the murders who brought a suspect to court 7 years earlier, who was then executed for similar murders, but now the murders appear to be exactly the same as the executed guy. In fact, as the investigation goes on, the killer is following exactly the Jack the Ripper killings. This is a good one, the whole premise is very interesting, especially to fans of Jack the Ripper movies. Simon Baker plays the mysterious lodger, but then again, nobody has seen him except the Wife, and when an investigation takes place, developments dictate, everything is not as it suggests. Good mystery, check this one out.

It could be that I missed something and that I need to re watch this movie. But honestly I already know that I won't do it. "The Lodger" is not a bad movie. It has just enough to make it interesting. A good cast,great cinematography and another take on the Jack the Ripper mythos. Only it suffers greatly from the lack of real suspense and tension. The mystery is there. There are several questions raised you want to be answered. The fact that only a fraction of those questions get explained make it a frustrating affair. Misdirection is a tool often used in thrillers in order to surprise us. And I must admit that the movie does promise a wonderful twist. However the twist is set up in such a way that it leaves too much room for different interpretations which destroys the desired effect. You won't be shocked or surprised,maybe a little bit confused. And such an ending could have been forgiven had the movie been fun to watch. "The Lodger" takes it self so seriously that it undermines the efforts of the cast to make this movie more interesting than it is. At one point you just know how events will play out. The lack of tension,humor and drama only are compensated by your drive to solve the mystery. And the hope that the director succeeded in fooling us in creating one big surprise at the end. But when the credits start to roll you can't shake the feeling that you wasted your time.

I have an undying love of true crime movies. There is something automatically fascinating about a disturbing story of true crime when there is the added effect that it is at least loosely based on real events. It's one of the most important things that makes me love movies like Zodiac or In Cold Blood or Dog Day Afternoon or even Silence of the Lambs, even though the real life element of that one is, ah, a little less specific. The Lodger, as you know, was Alfred Hitchcock's first major film, made in 1927, well before sound. The new Lodger has a tough time justifying itself, but it is not entirely without effect.

The movie tells the story of a mysterious recurrence of Jack-the-Ripper-style murders, although it takes the crimes out of the London fog and replaces it on the wet streets of Los Angeles. A series of brutal prostitute murders have been determined to be exact replicas of very specific Ripper murders, even positioning the bodies the same places and making similar efforts in geography. Complicating matters is the fact that a man has already been jailed and executed for the murders, which unfortunately start happening again.

Meanwhile, an unhappy housewife across town is routinely abandoned by her deadbeat husband, who repeatedly tells her basically to take her medication and leave him alone, and by the way, why can't she make herself useful and find a lodger for that old shed in the backyard. Money doesn't grow on trees, woman.

She does find a lodger, one who acts sufficiently mysterious and suspicious, and for a while the movie turns into your standard murder mystery thriller, although I was glad to see the addition in the third act of the clouding issue of an unstable mind. It's a story-telling technique that is very easy to screw up, but when it's used right it can add a whole different experience to an otherwise straight-forward and uninteresting story.

It is not used here as well as I've seen it used before (at least in originality), but it's true that it adds a much-needed extra layer to an otherwise insufficient story. Unfortunately, because the rest of the movie is a murder mystery the style of which is far too familiar by now, the instability idea seems like an effort to add something to an otherwise weak movie, and it's just not enough to make the movie at all memorable. In fact, some moviegoers will find it outwardly laughable.

Alfred Molina plays a detective who is striving to solve the case, although I would expect an actor of his caliber to be spending his time on better movies than this. Unfortunately, despite his performance and a number of other mildly impressive roles, the movie is also peppered with horrible acting and ridiculously badly written characters.

The lodger himself, first of all, is of the variety that acts extremely suspicious in ways that could only possibly happen if he were really the killer. When the wife accidentally discovers him burning clothing in the barbecue, he calmly explains that he was just trying to dry them. In a good mystery, perfectly normal behavior is made to be suspicious by the context of other actions, the music, the performances, etc.

Who the hell dries pants on a barbecue?

There is also the issue of a psychologist who analyzes the police's evidence about the mysterious killer, and offers an explanation that is little more than a lot of wordy nonsense that sounds like it was thrown together by a Psychology undergrad at UCLA with no other purpose than to sound impressive. Sadly, it doesn't. The ex-wife of Molina's character is also a mental case herself who, for reasons that I won't reveal, is unable to stand the sight of her husband. When she does at one point in the film, she descends into a hysterical fit of screaming which, had it gone on for about another three seconds, would have been enough for me to give up and fling the DVD out the window.

But the movie's biggest problem is that it comes off as a standard mystery, the first half of which is designed to show why everyone is a suspect and the second half designed to deliver a thrilling finale that, when it comes, just isn't all that thrilling. The murder investigation is full of movie-miracles (like a footprint which is leaked to the press and printed "actual size" on the front page of the newspaper) but the real letdown doesn't come until the final scene, lifted directly out of Psycho and full of psychobabble nonsense. And the psychologist's analysis, believe it or not, takes place before the actual arrest. Fastest mental analysis ever!! But it's not so much that the psychological explanation doesn't make sense as much as the fact that the reasons given may send your palm(s) flying rapidly to your forehead. So be advised…

Here's the opening scene. The camera moves slowly, at a stroller's pace, along a Los Angeles sidewalk. It encounters a gate with a "Room For Rent" sign. The camera glides onto the pathway between the untended gardens of weeds towards what passes in Los Angeles for an ominous house. Then it drops to a close up of a newspaper near the doorstep.

Is this a point-of-view shot, with the camera showing us what the person is seeing? No. A hand reaches down, picks up the newspaper, and a blond housewife (Davis) strolls back through the door.

What it is, boys and girls, is an imitation of one of Hitchcock's swooping introductions, ripped off shamelessly from "Psycho" and "Frenzy", and that newspaper on which so much attention is lavished and which was of significance in "Psycho" plays no further part in the plot.

Other Hitchcock ripoffs, just from the opening few minutes: (1) The shots inside the house show the blond's mean-looking, greasy-haired, scowling husband (Logue) eating his breakfast. The camera clearly shows us the slice of ham, the scrambled eggs, the two slices of toast, which the ugly husband is buttering wordlessly. Meanwhile the TV in the background is telling us about the murder of a prostitute. It all mixes food, sex, and murder, as so many Hitchcock movies did, only this is without taste or humor. (2) The rather drably groomed blond wife is watching her husband slice away at his food. She holds an abnormally large glass of orange juice. Why? So she can lift it and drink out of it and we can see the distorted image of hubby through the bottom of the glass, just as in Hitchcock's "Spellbound." (3) The TV in the background carries on about the murder. The sound is blurred except for one word, repeated several times, which leaps out loudly at the view -- "knife." Lifted in its entirety from Hitchcock's first talkie, "Blackmail." There isn't space enough to go on with this, nor any impulse to do so. I'd rather examine the contents of a spitoon. But let me get a few other annoyances out of the way. Periodically, for no discernible reason, the director shoots scenes in fast motion. Accelerated motion has its place. It was used to good symbolic effect in movies like "Koyaanisqatsi" and even the otherwise dreary "The Bonfire of the Vanities." Here it's used pointlessly. Every shot of freeway traffic shows us vehicles speedily zipping by instead of crawling along in a state of fury. There are two scenes of Hope Davis doing housework -- speeded up. (A woman doing HOUSEWORK is speeded up! And this is not a comedy!) Another scene has the camera strapped to Davis's chest, a device which tends to keep the subject at the same distance from the camera and relatively stable in image, while her environment revolves in a jarring manner around her. Why? Well, it's one of those mysteries that must remain unsolved, like the Jack the Ripper murders.

Some of those techniques are newly established clichés but many of the old ones appear here as well, coated with verdigris. A man sits at his desk in silence. A hand reaches in from out of frame and grabs his shoulder, accompanied by a loud sting on the sound track -- but it's just a friend, who chuckles at having scared his buddy. A pimp is called in for questioning and he wears the feathers and furs common to pimps in 1970s movies. But why go on? Alfred Molina has a great face, flabby and imposing. Even his name is impressive; in Spanish it means "great big mill." He's the overzealous policeman on whom suspicion falls. That face belongs on a baritone in an Italian opera. Rachael Leigh Cook's name is listed way up there in the credits but she has little screen time. The chief female figure is that blond housewife played by Hope Davis and she doesn't do badly by the part, as long as it call for a quiet intensity, whether the intensity stems from dissatisfaction with her family or horniness.

Did I mention that this is adapted from a book and is the fourth or fifth remake of the story? All the preceding attempts are better than this one, although this one at least spares us two irritations -- the wobbling camera and the close ups of the screaming victims as the knife renders their flesh.

The ending tries to link the Ripper murders to the Sunset murders of whores but makes no sense whatever. The dark, pretty, talented, intelligent Rebecca Pidgeon is wasted as an FBI agent forced to spout psychobabble that turns out to be one hundred percent wrong. (I speak to you as your psychologist. That will be ten cents.) Boy, is this tiresome.

A little background first.

In 1888, In London Englamd Jack The Ripper savagely killed 6 ladies of the evening. Even though there were many suspects, & many theories, we never found out who he was or why this happened.

In about 1925 Maria Belloc Loundes wrote the novel THE LODGER. It was a success, In 1926/7 Alfred Hitchcock who was starting to create a name for himself in Movies, made the silent version of the novel. We know what happened to Mr Hitchcock & his career,

In 1944, the next version of The Lodger was made, starring Laird Cregar.

Mr.Cregar was a huge man, only in his 20's very tall & very heavy. His very presence in any scene in any of the few films he made (he was only 28 when he passed on)commanded attention from the audience. This version was directed by John Brahm who was(at the time) made suspenseful movies 'ala' Hitchcock. It was a big hit and considered one of the better films of that year.

Now we come to the current version. First, what was good in the film,the settings & costumes were very good,

The killing were not seen in total, You hear victims scream & limbs moving.(this is the way they did it in both earlier versions). The acting was good by a talented cast; headed by Alfred Molina and Shane West as the 2 detectives assigned to the case. Hope Davis & Donal Logue as the couple who rent the guest house to Simon Baker, Philip Baker Hall as an FBI agent.Rachel Leigh Cook & the ever reliable, Rebecca Pidgeon also have major roles.

We do not learn who the killer is until almost the end of movie, It is a slight but not unexpected surprise.

Now for what I did not like. They changed the location from a slimy section of London Eng. in 1888 to modern Los Angeles, West Hollywood. The area is far from slimy,some parts are rundown but not like in the movie. I KNOW because I call the West Hollywood area my home.

They have a few scenes in pouring rain, we rarely ever have such rain as depicted.

This version was written & directer by David Ondaatje.

Maybe because I may have seen too many films of this nature, I was not impressed. It had a very brief run in Jan.2009 & released to DVD in March 2009,.

There are some nice extras on the DVD<

Ratings: **1/2 out of 4..73 points out of 100.. IMDb 6.. out of 10

The Lodger (2009)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Yet another remake of Alfred Hitchcock's 1927 film but this one is set in current day Los Angeles where a maniac is killing hookers. While a detective (Alfred Molina) tries to solve the case, an unhappily married woman (Hope Davis) rents her guest house to a mysterious writer (Simon Baker). One could argue that we really didn't need yet another version of this story but I think they did enough interesting things here to make this version worth watching. I think it falls well short of the 1927 and 1944 versions but I did like a few of the changes they did here. Setting the story in current times allows the filmmakers to use stuff like DNA and other scientific things to try to solve the cases. It also helps that the filmmakers are able to use the Jack the Ripper sideline as someone trying to copy his murders. I will say that the final ten minutes of the movie are without question the best thing in the film because it offers up a couple very nice twists that actually work. I'm certainly not going to give them away but I enjoyed them very much. The performances are also another major plus as Molina is excellent as the detective obsessed with solving the case. Shane West is good as his partner and Philip Baker Hall is also strong as the police chief. Rachel Leigh Cook plays the detective's daughter in a small role. Both Davis and Baker are also good in their portion of the story. I think some of the attempted style is a bit overdone and especially the scenes showing the L.A. freeways. I think less would have been a bit more in regards to the style thrown in by the director. Still, fans of the story will probably want to check this one out and while it's not a complete success it's at least good enough to be worth watching.

Based off the same book as Alfred Hitchcock's 1927 adaptation, this version of 'The Lodger' yields a surprisingly strong cast in Alfred Molina, Rachel Leigh Cook, Philip Baker Hall, Donald Logue, Simon Baker, and Hope Davis. It tells the tale of a not-so-happy couple that rents out a room to a mysterious young man and begin to discover deeper secrets about him. . . like that he may be involved in a series of local murders.

When I first saw the IMDb page for this film, I was stunned that such a strong cast and solid idea didn't make it very far into theatres, especially with as successful as horror has been so far this year. Unfortunately, low-budget horror re-adaptations tend to have some pretty bad stigmas associated with them ('I Am Omega,' 'The Raven'). . . because they're usually pretty terrible. It's even more difficult to follow in the footsteps of Alfred Hitchcock, one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Nevertheless, feature-rookie David Ondaatje ignored those dangers and went along with the film anyway. I'm pretty glad he did. This adaptation of 'The Lodger,' while it doesn't compare to Hitchcock's in the least, is very entertaining and keeps a solid amount of mystery throughout. It's cheap and it shows, yes, but the great cast, who does a reasonable job, does manage to raise it above the level of low-grade, straight-to-video horrors (like the above mentioned films) to, at least, a respectable and worthy quality. Ondaatje's direction is apt enough, though David A. Armstrong's cinematography and William Flicker's editing do seriously ruin the mood sometimes with random shakicam and MTV-style cuts. The re-adapted script flows well, but the dialogue is a bit awkward sometimes and really needed another edit. Another problem with the script is the overly forceful attempts at creating red herrings. I love mystery as much as the next guy (actually, moreso), but when you're trying to shove false leads down the viewers' throats, you're going to be making it less mysterious and more annoying. Also, it was pretty hilarious that they would send 55-year-old Alfred Molina, who is at least 100 pounds overweight, running after a a murderer instead of 30-year-old Shane West, who's in perfect shape. So logical. Anyway. . . if you're looking for an entertaining mystery-thriller, or if you're a big fan of Jack the Ripper (like me, which is why I at least found it interesting) or previous adaptations of 'The Lodger,' give this one a look. It's not great, but it's an okay time-passer.

Final Verdict: 6/10.

-AP3-

As a neo-noir, The Lodger is pretty familiar material, but If I'll remember it for anything, (and that's a big 'if') it would be the body count, which is among the highest of anything I've seen in this genre. The story concerns an LAPD detective in search of a killer recreating JAck the Ripper's legacy.

I'll give the Lodger a bit of credit for its ability to keep you guessing, but that's just about all that the film is committed to doing. The story is shallow, and much of the dialogue sounds recycled. The acting isn't very good either, and screen time which should have been spent on more intellectual character interaction is wasted on unnecessary montages of time-lapse photography which looks like something from television.

Overall, the movie is watchable, but it could've amounted to more.

"The Lodger," now on DVD develops a storyline involving a tenant living with a lonely landlady and serial killings in the West Hollywood area of Los Angeles. The film seems to involve two separate stories, with different characters who meet in the final climactic finish; however, no closure is given to the story as the killer within "The Lodger," escapes capture. Alfred Molina, the lead in the film begins the story at the scene of a grisly murder and the picture revolves mostly around this character's attempts at tracking down an anonymous serial killer. The settings are primarily shot in the downtown Los Angeles area with several scenes from an urban neighbourhood contrasting the busyness of the city. The characters and lives of Detective Manning (Molina) are given an early initial reveal while the back stories of the landlady and the lodger are not given even a partial reveal until midway into the film. Near the end of the film the life of the lodger is given a partial reveal, which seems slightly disappointing.

The original musical score that haunts the picture throughout really adds an entire dimension to the film that enhances the movie watching experience. The soundtrack begins early in the film, subtly and hovers in the background during many of the scenes. Composer John Frizzell produces an excellent composition that adds to the overall intensity of the film while highlighting certain climactic scenes. The musical score, while not taking center stage in the film makes "The Lodger," a more fulfilling visceral experience.

Lighting, acting, and story development are each well done, but director David Ondaatje's use of Los Angeles city streets, in fast forward mode seems overly mysterious in tone. The movie begins with a CGI image of blood, in veins that transforms into the city streets of Los Angeles, and during the film several shots of traffic moving exceptionally fast break up the pacing within "The Lodger." Possibly symbolic of the transitory nature of the killer the streets of Los Angeles are shown throughout the movie to ease the pacing at certain key points in the film. As well, overhead shots of the sky, with clouds are meant to show the transition of time, but their symbolic interpretation seems ambiguous. On the acting side the portrayal of Rachel Leigh Cook as a somewhat distraught, lonely housewife is done with subtly and a flair for the under dramatic, that keeps the viewer's attention on the believability of the story. Other actors including; Alfred Molina as an over-worked detective, and Donal Logue as a potential suspect are especially well done and deliver realism to the story. In addition, the lighting, which takes place primarily in natural daylight, gives "The Lodger," an eerie feel as shots of alleyways and streets are shot in partial darkness.

Director David Ondaatje, nephew of writer Michael Ondaatje delivers a strong film, surprisingly after only directing two previous feature films. Ondaatje switches often between the use of stead-cams and a hand held 35mm to display various shots of the Los Angeles landscapes and characters within the film. Often using medium shots at the beginning of a scene and then slowly rotating left or right as the director moves in for a close-up, Ondaatje's manages to keep the visuals interesting while keeping character interactions short. Many of the dialogue scenes between the landlady and tenant are kept to less than a minute, and often to less than thirty seconds. The quick changes between scenes and characters can be somewhat distracting, but Ondaatje is quickly moving the story along as the killer's vile habits are slowly given a reveal. Focusing on the killer's view or a knife blade the killer utilizes a mysterious quality, which while frustrating at times does manage to make the film slightly more intense. Another directing quirk from Ondaatje seems to be his love for filming feet as several frames are shot exclusively of women's feet and rarely of the killer's.

The sets, actors, and filming techniques each do their part in delivering an excellent psychological thriller, that while overly sparse on the action scenes manages to hold the viewer's full attention throughout. The light musical compositions along with experienced actors are a bonus and both elements are able to develop a very intriguing story that delves into the motivations of a serial killer. "The Lodger," from relatively new director David Ondaatje does not give closure to the story, but the film, overall is very entertaining to watch.

7 Creepy Skulls out of 10.

This movie fits into my category of a movie that I felt compelled to continue watching but ultimately ended up being disappointing. That does not mean I will withhold a recommendation from the film, however.

I did not read very much about "The Lodger" before watching it. I was hoping that this would add an air of suspense to my viewing. It did, but it is possible it may have also led me to criticize it more harshly than I would have if I had known more about the plot.

My first problem with the movie came very early on. Detective Manning gets a letter from evidence which is very obviously a facsimile of the "Dear Boss" letter from the Jack the Ripper investigations. This letter was the first of three letters that have been studied along with the Ripper case. "Dear Boss" was the first letter that mentioned the name "Jack the Ripper" and since it mentioned he would clip the next victim's ear and the next victim was found missing an earlobe, it was considered evidence. I am a bit of a Ripperologist, but I am sure that you do not have to be such to recognize this letter. In this movie, however, two more murders have to take place before Jack the Ripper is even mentioned.

This movie is way too packed with red herrings. It leads you down a path believing that a lady in the movie is psychotic and imagining that she has a lodger living with her who may be committing the murders. It introduces a tense family situation with Molina's character that adds suspicion. There is a whole situation about the death penalty that is meant to lead you to believe the murders were meant to cause the wrong man to be executed to prohibit the death penalty. There are plenty more I am not going to mention.

What I enjoyed most is that this movie was paced perfectly. Even though there were several things that I did not like, I kept watching it because I was drawn in and I wanted the movie to reveal to me what was really going on. Many times when I get aggravated with a movie, I will just look up spoilers to save me the time of watching the whole thing. I did not want to do that with this movie though.

However, after the movie ended, I wished that I had looked up the spoilers. The ending made very little sense. The police had a psychological profile that obviously had been written up by someone who did not even have their associates of arts in psychology. All of the things in the movie that were supposed to arouse suspicion were pointless, and the ending became simply as mundane as possible.

In writing suspense movies, there are two plot lines that have been overused in recent years and should be abandoned. The first plot line is that the entire thing was set up by one of the main characters who has a dissociative identity. It worked once or twice, but shouldn't be used anymore. The second plot is the one in which you have an obvious scenario that the viewer is pulled away from for a much more bizarre plot. Once the viewer gets involved in the alternate possibilities, at the end of the movie it is revealed that the obvious scenario was real and everything else was there simply so you wouldn't suspect it. It's a disease of writers thinking they are utilizing Occam's Razor to make a story simple, but more fascinating. It doesn't work and it insults the viewer and wastes the viewer's time. T

This movie is of the second plot line and for this reason I recommend that you skip it and watch something else.

I would say The Lodger is a good mystery/thriller but only for television. Just relax in front of the telly and try to figure out what is happening. I thought I had it figured out after twenty minutes but I was wrong and that is what I like about mystery/thrillers. The actors are okay in their roles. They might not be the best actors ever but they are certainly worth a watch. There are enough turns and twists to keep you guessing in what's going on. Some people might think there are too many but I thought it was fine. I was only a bit disappointed at the end. I thought it was just a bit too confusing. But other then that The Lodger is an okay movie to watch once or if you have nothing else to do.

I have seen a lot of crime movies in my life. This is, hands down the worst. No script, no plot, horrible acting, worse editing. Don't bother.

Writer director, David Ondaatje puts a new spin on the Marie Belloc Lowndes' story, which has been filmed a number of times before, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock and John Brahm.

Although the basics are there, the story has shifted to modern day West Hollywood, which is in the grip of a serial killer emulating the Ripper killings of 1880's London. When a lodger, (Simon Baker) rents a secluded room from a couple, Ellen and Joe Bunting (Hope Davis and Donal Logue), near where the killings have taken place, our suspicions immediately fall on him.

However the movie shifts the suspect focus around. Chandler Manning (Alfred Molina), the detective who investigates the case, has a few secrets of his own, as do the Buntings. As the murders keep happening, Ellen Bunting becomes dangerously attracted to the lodger. Ondaatje brings a psychological twist to this retelling because we are never sure if Ellen is merely imagining the lodger. The film has a surprise ending - clever, but maybe a little too clever.

The film updates the story; we didn't need a straight remake - Hitchcock's silent version did it well with that famous glass ceiling shot of the lodger pacing his room, and John Brahm did a classy job with the 1940's remake starring Laird Cregar. Another period piece just wouldn't have cut it.

Although the movie works pretty well for the most part, and is made with care, Ondaatje overdoes the Hitchcock homage - it didn't need it. Surely we are past the point, thanks to Brian De Palma and others, where deliberate references to the Hitchcock touch are remotely fresh or novel. Here we have the telescoping camera technique from "Vertigo", the emphasis on the word knife from 1929's "Blackmail", and at least half-a-dozen others. They are in-jokes that detract from the story.

Simon Baker brings some of his "Mentalist" charm to the role and is a disarming villain - if he is indeed the villain. Alfred Molina and Hope Davis deliver powerful performances: he as the conflicted detective, and she as the conflicted wife of a husband who also seems to have another side to his character.

The performances save the film. The lodger works well enough for what it is, but I don't think there is much danger of it replacing the Hitchcock or Brahm versions in the memory of anyone who has seen them.

Unfortunately THE LODGER is one of those films which loses me from the outset thanks to the all-too-glossy "look" and feel. Given the nature of the subject matter this should be a production crying out for grim and gritty styling, but instead this has a slick sheen of the kind seen in US TV shows like CSI.

In addiction, the story is nothing to write home about, despite the promise inherent in the premise. It's an erstwhile remake of the silent Hitchcock movie of the same name, presented in the modern day, with two seemingly separate plot strands: weary detectives are tracking a modern day Jack the Ripper, while a houseowner gets to grips with her mysterious new tenant.

Sadly, the detective plot is superficial and largely uninteresting, purely because it's so hackneyed; even a solid actor like Alfred Molina can do little with the material, which I found boring more than anything else. Meanwhile, the 'tenant' plot is equally lame, having been done to death in many a 1990s-era psycho-thriller, and the characters are so underwritten as to be cardboard.

Lame attempts to build mystery are all too familiar and the double-twist ending is predictable in the extreme. Sadly, there are all too many of these middle-of-the-road thrillers churned out by Hollywood; they contain zero memorable material yet at the same time aren't bad enough to stay in the memory for the wrong reasons. They're just insipid and entirely forgettable.

***SPOILERS*** Modernized version of Marie Lowndes' 1913 novel about the infamous "Jack the Ripper" who terrorized the Whitechaple-Kensington sections of London in the late summer and early fall of 1888 resulting in the brutal murders of at least 6 women. In this updated version of the famous "Jack the Ripper", who was never caught, saga the crimes committed by a copy cat of his are in West L.A with L.A homicide detective Chandler Manning, Alfred Molina, trying to track down and, if at all possible, apprehend the elusive psycho. That's before he disappears forever only to resurface some ten years later to continue his what's by now 120 year murder spree.

It was in fact Det. Manning who apprehended a "Jack the Ripper" like killer seven years earlier, Emilio Rodriguez, who ended up being executed for the murder of two L.A prostitutes just day's before the latest "Jack the Ripper" murders were committed! It soon becomes evident that the latest killings were that of the person who framed Rodriguez seven years ago thus having him, an innocent man, sent to the San Quentin death house! With Det. Manning now more determined then ever to catch this new "Jack the Ripper" copy cat killer he becomes absorbed in what the original "Jack the Ripper" did back in London in the fall of 1888! That to the point where he loses control of his very shaky marriage with his now mentally ill wife, Margaret, who had a complete mental breakdown because of his obsession with the Emilio Rodriguez case!

The "Lodger" comes on the scene in the person of the mysterious so-called free-lance writer Malcolm, Simon Baker, who rents an apartment from the very mentally unstable, were never told just what her problems are, Ellen Bunting, Hope Davis. Mrs Bunting starts to get very friendly with the devilishly handsome, especially after she saw him with his shirt off, Malcolm in that her old man, husband, Joe, Donal Logue, is never around to pay ant attention to her. In that Joe works the night shift, and sleeps in the daytime, at a wear-house in downtown L.A. It's that strange relationship with the even more strange Malcolm that has Joe who's never allowed to see his new tenant, in order not to disturb him in his "work", to sense that something isn't quite right and starts to investigate.

Extremely complicated murder mystery that has both Det. Manning and his rookie partner Det. Street Wilkerson, Shane West, going around in circles trying to catch the illusive killer. As things are soon to turn out the killer is in fact copying not only "Jack the Rippers" cut im' up tactics but also his victims, prostitutes, and even the geography of the landscape, the Whitechaple-Kensington of London, where he committed his crimes! That the area of West L.A fits perfectly!

***SPOILERS*** The film "The Lodger" is actually more of a plea against the death penalty then anything else. Were shown that an innocent man was sent to his death for a crime that he didn't commit that had the real killer go free to continue to kill again. That with the police a bit shy in apprehending him in order not to reveal that they screwed up in the first place in letting the killer, by executing someone else's in his place, get off not only Scot-Free but to be able to continue killing!

***MAJOR SPOILER*** There's's also a very very clever plot twist put into the film that keeps you, as well as the police, off balance to who the real "Jack the Ripper" killer really is until the very end of the movie. And that has to be explained to the audience and police by police profiler Dr. Jessica Westmin played by Rebecca Pidgon. It's Mrs. Pidgon who had previous as well as first hand experience in her dealing with psycho killers from her experience of being the jilted wife of that crazed and homicidal lunatic "Edmond" in the 2005 psycho-thriller of the same name.