ThiefHott
Too much of everything
WillSushyMedia
This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.
Senteur
As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
joe-pearce-1
This film has been quite well-reviewed elsewhere here, so I will confine myself to making some pertinent comments left pretty much unaddressed elsewhere: For a film that depends so much on late-19th century English atmosphere, and somewhat achieves it visually, the accents of the six leading actors in it can be jarring, to say the least. Only Lester Matthews as a senior inspector really sounds British. Jack Palance sounds unambiguously American, as does Frances Bavier, while Rhys Williams as Bavier's husband sounds Welsh (which he was). Byron Palmer, who had only recently opened his mouth in TONIGHT WE SING to have Jan Peerce's voice come pouring out, was not a bad actor, but was a very poor choice for an English police inspector (especially next to George Sanders in the 1944 version) and also comes over as totally American. Constance Smith was Irish, but even she sounds more American than British. This wouldn't be important in a film with characters of diverse national backgrounds (think CASABLANCA), but a polyglot Jack the Ripper story is unconvincing.Many of the distance or action scenes in this film (the police climbing balconies, rooftops and the like) are actually taken right out of 1944's THE LODGER, and only portions of such scenes re-filmed to show the actors in this production, thereby contributing to its B-movie appearance.Constance Smith is quite good, and far more believable in her role than was Merle Oberon nine years earlier. Ms. Oberon came over as a bit too mature and certainly a bit too classy to be a Music Hall Queen, and she did not dance or high kick half as well as Ms. Smith.The Ripper is described as 'of average height', yet Jack Palance is anything but of average height and build and is of such huge presence that he would stand out in almost any crowd.Motivation is considerably changed between the 1944 and 1953 versions: In the earlier film, Cregar's character is psychologically forced to do the things he does by the death of his beloved brother, brought to ruin by a loose actress. In the 1953 version, he hates women of the streets (read prostitutes) because his mother was a truly nasty piece of work and ended up as one of them.Most amazingly, in the 1953 version, mention is made of his mother's name and a bright detective recalls that that was the name of Jack's first victim, and we then see the cops looking at a picture of her. Although this provides a tie-in to Slade, it is never again mentioned, nor is the fact that this would imply that Slade murdered his mother in the street to start off his killing spree (a possible shock to a 1953 movie-goer's system in that pre-Norman Bates era!). Also, we see a photo of a reasonably young woman, yet if Slade is, say, in his early 30s, she would have to have been at least 50.No mention is made of the fact that the two victims we do see and get to know a little are played by veteran actresses Isabel Jewell (memorable in everything she ever did) and Lillian Bond (a British-cum-American leading lady of the 1930s who was Melvyn Douglas's love interest in the original THE OLD DARK HOUSE). The latter character, who had starred at the Music Hall where the Smith character is now achieving much success, is not nearly as well defined as in the 1944 version.In the final chase through the streets, care has not been taken to disguise the fact that the driver of Slade's horse and carriage bears absolutely no resemblance to Jack Palance.Palance is truly excellent in this, yet the somewhat 'hammier' (not meant pejoratively) performance by Laird Cregar seems more memorable, if only for the earlier film's extraordinary 'heavy-breathing' sequence (sans music or any other sound) from Cregar when he is, as they say, cornered like a rat.As everyone agrees, the songs heard here are both out of place for this story, and out of fashion for its period, but so were the ones in the 1944 version. The whole thing would have made more sense and been more believable had Lily been an actress in, say, an Oscar Wilde play, rather than a Music Hall star.Despite the accent problem and a lack of true suspense throughout, it is certainly enjoyable to be reminded of just how well Jack Palance was doing at the time (think of the evil hired gun in SHANE, the actor pushed to murderous intent in Joan Crawford's SUDDEN FEAR, and only a bit later, the crushed actor in THE BIG KNIFE) and to see him here in one of his less well-remembered films from that period.
TheLittleSongbird
The performance of Jack Palance is the main reason to see The Man in the Attic. It is one of his most restrained performances and all the better for it, he is perfectly cast, looking the part with his tall slender frame and Machiavellian features, and his emotionally vulnerable and also sinister interpretation is a most interesting one.He is well supported by most of the supporting cast, with Rhys Williams being very good and Constance Smith is very charming in a rather caricatured role. Byron Palmer is appropriately business-like in the police inspector role. Frances Bavier just about passes muster and suitably cynical but her accent with those twangy vowels(the pronunciation of bag jars) is not convincing at all while Tita Phillips is weak and wooden as maid Daisy. The Man in the Attic looks great, with Victorian London being sumptuously and chillingly evoked and the black and white cinematography is beautifully done. The Man in the Attic has a haunting, chilling even in the first five minutes(which is also the most suspenseful the film gets), music score that adds a great deal to the film's atmosphere, it is more 1950s than authentic 1888 but it is not that jarring actually.The script while predictable in places is at times subtly amusing and often thoughtful without falling into the traps of being too speculative, one-sided or insisting it's the truth. The story is staid in action but it is involving and neatly structured with a truly exciting horse and carriage chase, having enough to keep you hooked. Slade is an interesting character, the film entertains and is well-paced, deliberate but never dull.It's a good film that does a lot right but at the same time it felt that something was missing. It is lacking in suspense and feels at times a little too neat and too careful, with the exceptions of the opening and the chase, with not quite enough to keep you guessing, mainly because I was convinced that Slade was guilty early on. This could have been improved a little if Slade was introduced later and that more was done with the investigating, what made Jack the Ripper so infamous and the murders, while what the film did with focusing on Slade was admirable it was a little too character driven. Jack the Ripper's murders were among the most shocking in history, and The Man in the Attic handled its murders rather ordinarily with them only being described.The Man in the Attic does end very abruptly and predictably with it being obvious how things were going to end, though keeping things ambiguous and open for interpretation was a wise move and the right(and only) thing to do, otherwise there would have been criticisms about the film butchering history. The Man in the Attic is also severely hurt by the musical numbers which should have been scrapped altogether. They are completely out of place, completely irrelevant to the story, are uninteresting choreographed(being more vulgar than sexy) and only manage to slow the film down. Overall, a good, enjoyable and well-made film with a great Palance and the many good things done very well indeed but something was missing. 6.5/10 Bethany Cox
dwpollar
1st watched 6/26/2014 -- 5 out of 10(Dir-Hugo Fregonese): Interesting but calculated mystery revolving around the British "Jack the Ripper" legend. This movie version of the story involves a mysterious pathologist played by a young Jack Palance who is setup early on as a possible suspect in the ripper's murders. This is not necessarily done thru the screenplay but rather by the way the movie is directed. From the first scene, the Ripper is the focus as two policeman escort home a drunk older lady only to see her murdered. Palance's character then arrives on the scene looking for a room with an attic to perform his experiments -- supposedly. Palance has the ability to be charming yet sometimes scary and menacing and shows his screen presence in this early film. Palance is not the problem with this movie -- the problem is that it sets his character up too early and rides him as a mysterious unknown with Frances Baviar(from Andy Griffith's TV show) as the landlord exclaiming her belief in his guilt early on. It's fun to see Aunt Bee before she became this TV show character, but other than this oddity the movie doesn't provide much mystery or allure. The cast is fine and there isn't any over-acting it's just not a good screenplay. I guess if you want to see these TV stars in earlier roles it's not a wasted viewing but other than that it doesn't offer much. It's kind of alarming that a man that actually did a lot of real killing to women in England has gotten so much attention and movie credo's but I guess that's just the way of our world....the movie doesn't help us understand anything different about this character and doesn't make for a worthwhile experience unfortunately.
Spikeopath
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
