Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

sol ***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.

Anthony Pittore III (Shattered_Wake) 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-

chrichtonsworld 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.