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.
Add a Review
-
Coventry17 September 2006
-
blanche-230 July 2005Good, atmospheric story of Jack the Ripper, in the person of a Mr. Slade, renting a sitting room and an attic room in a London home. Jack Palance, with his unusual looks and soft voice, is perfectly cast as the man who falls under suspicion of being the Ripper. He finds himself to attracted to the flirtatious, beautiful, and kind-hearted niece of the owner of the home, Lily, played by Constance Smith. Smith was an Irish actress who was under contract to Fox for a time, after which she made films in Italy, retiring apparently in 1959. As a risqué entertainer and beauty, Lily has also attracted the attentions of a Scotland Yard inspector. It proves an odd triangle. Frances Bavier of Andy Griffith Show fame plays Lily's aunt. Very interesting, small film that manages to have a British feel despite the variety of accents and non-accents of the major actors.
-
TheLittleSongbird23 February 2015The 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 -
Bucs19609 December 2005This 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.
-
Space_Mafune23 January 2003This is a very well-made stylized thriller starring Jack Palance as Slade, the soft-spoken, quiet man (a research pathologist) staying up in the Harleys attic who is suspected by Mrs. Harley of being Jack the Ripper..Mr. Harley meanwhile thinks this is all nonsense caused by all the media attention caused by the recent Ripper murders. Palance is really quite good in this role as one never feels really certain of his character's intentions. There are times he seems quite normal and ordinary..simply a quiet lonely man but he does have some odd quirks such as a dislike of actresses and strong feelings of resentment towards his mother, a former actress, for leaving his father. Constance Smith is very charming in the role of Lily Bonner, the leading stage star of the local Parisian theater...a woman whom Mr. Slade soon finds himself unexpectedly involved with as she finds him to be quite interesting and attractive. While this is not quite as good as 1944's THE LODGER, it is nonetheless engaging entertainment.
-
rixrex2 November 2007Not 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. -
Hitchcoc19 January 2007Pretty 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.
-
hitchcockthelegend16 February 2013Man 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 -
rosian10 April 2007This 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. -
The_Void14 October 2007There is no shortage of films based on London's most notorious serial killer, Jack the Ripper, but in spite of this fact: Man in the Attic is a welcome addition to the list of films concerning The Ripper. It can't be said that Man in the Attic is a great film, but it's certainly a good one and did everything I had hoped it would do. The plot here is basically the same one featured in Hitchcock's silent classic 'The Lodger', as well as a whole host of other films. We follow the plot as a mysterious man moves into a house owned by an elderly coupled and co-habited by their actress niece. The Jack the Ripper murders are happening around the same time, and it's not long before the lodger's strange nature leads the lady of the couple to believe that they may be renting their spare room to a serial killer! Director Hugo Fregonese gives the film a great atmosphere; the smoky streets of London look superb and really give this story a good place to take place in. There's also a great score that helps to add to the atmosphere. The film focuses more on Jack the Ripper himself and his situation, and there are very little details of the actual killings, and certainly no gore...which is something of a shame, but the way that the film sets its focus and sticks to it is to its advantage. The plot moves fairly slowly and the mystery is never overly exciting; but it's not too much of a problem because the characters are interesting and Jack Palance is spot on as the reclusive killer. Overall, Man in the Attic is a wholly satisfying yarn that entertains despite not being brilliant.
-
Based on "The Lodger" by Marie Belloc Lowndes, this is another take on the Jack the Ripper legend that takes place in Victorian London's West End side.
Sinister looking JACK PALANCE is perfectly well cast as the young man seeking lodgings in a rooming house during a period when the city is aghast over a series of brutal murders. The story begins with ISABEL JEWELL as a "lady of the night" getting her comeuppance from The Ripper.
Produced by Fox at a time when the studio system was collapsing, it looks as though it was filmed on the quick (and cheaply), using sets from other Fox films, particularly the atmospheric London streets with cobblestone and gaslights, a village set often used in Fox films of the period.
Although it follows the Ripper story faithfully, there's nothing new about the presentation. Secondary roles are filled by lesser names like RHYS WILLIAMS and CONSTANCE SMITH and one gets the feeling it's strictly been given perfunctory treatment by writers and director. Smith is a very pretty lady but fails to make the same sort of impression Merle Oberon did in "The Lodger" in the same role of the showgirl. BYRON PALMER is rather colorless as a police inspector who falls in love with Smith.
Strangely enough, JACK PALANCE is never as menacing as Laird Cregar was in "The Lodger." There's more of the "smokehouse ham" in his performance than anything else.
Summing up: The Ripper tale has been done better countless times. -
theowinthrop21 May 2007In 1944 Laird Cregar had appeared in the film version of THE LODGER which has generally been considered the best version of that film of the three versions (although Hitchcock's silent version has it's admirers). Cregar's performance led to a follow-up film HANGOVER SQUARE, which proved to be his final performance due to a crash diet he put himself on that killed him.
Nine years later 20th Century Fox decided to remake THE LODGER, and the current version starred Jack Palance. It was retitled MAN IN THE ATTIC - perhaps because the 1944 film had gained classic status. The story remains the same.
It is based on a legend of the Ripper that keeps cropping up, most recently in the discussions of the connection of the painter Walter Sickert with the Whitechapel Murders. Sickert loved to discuss crimes, and he told the story about having rented rooms at a lodging house, and being told the former tenant of the rooms was suspected by the landlady of being Jack the Ripper. The prior tenant had only gone out at night, and came back disheveled, and would pounce on all the newspapers on those days that followed the next Ripper murder. However, this tenant had left the room when his health failed, and the landlady learned that he had died two months later. Sickert did tell this story to several people: Osbert Sitwell (who wrote of it in his book NOBLE ESSENCES), Max Beerbohm, and Sir William Rothenstein being three of them. But no name was ever passed down on this suspect (Rothenstein apparently wrote it down, but the writing was destroyed). The story became known to novelist Marie Belloc Lowndes (possibly she heard it from Sickert or some common acquaintance), and she wrote a short story "The Lodger" which was subsequently expanded into a small novel or novella of the same name.
Mr. Slade (Palance) is a pathologist at a London Hospital, who rents rooms in the lodging house of the Harleys (Rhys Williams and Frances Bavier - "Aunt Bea" on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW"). Slade is very silent and mysterious, and slowly Mrs. Harley begins to suspect if Slade is the Ripper. However Mr. Harley keeps contesting her proof (by the fact that he would act the same way as Slade would). The situation worsens when the Harley's niece Lily Bonner (Constance Smith) returns from a successful tour of Paris, to perform at the Picadilly Music Hall. Bavier is increasingly worried about her niece, who is the only person who can somehow make Slade relax and be friendly.
In the novel/novella the actual guilt of Slade as the Ripper is left unsolved by his suicide before the police can act (his death by drowning is also based on a rumor that the Ripper drowned himself - a matter as contentious as any other in the mystery). In this version Palance makes one suspicious for most of the film, but we feel he is capable of better actions (and he is disgusted by some of his rival's, Detective Inspector Warwick - Byron Palmer - patterns of behavior, such as predicting he understands the Ripper or taking Lily for a tour, with Slade, through the Black Museum of Scotland Yard).
The conclusion of the film actually is far more exciting than in the 1944 version (complete with a horse and carriage chase). But the ambiguity of Slade's guilt remains here, unlike the 1944 version. When he does threaten - SPOILER HERE - Lily he can't bring himself to kill her, as he loves her. Palance brings this off well, unlike Cregar whose interest in Merle Oberon in 1944 was not as potentially romantic, but simply part of a religious mania.
I still like Cregar's version of the central role better, but Palance's performance is well worth watching - as are Bavier, Williams, Palmer and Smith in support. I also note that this version is good in capturing some of the actual story. Sir Charles Warren, the Commissioner of Scotland Yard is mentioned, as is his resignation under fire in November 1888. Another character is named as Chief Inspector Melville, an actual Chief Inspector of the Yard. Maybe not quite as atmospheric as the 1944 version, but not one to be casually dismissed out of hand either. -
rmax30482314 October 2006A minor film about Jack the Ripper who, in this instance, is named Slade and played with unrelenting intensity by Jack Palance. It's not bad. The two Jacks are a little more sympathetic here than usual, though no less suspicious.
It's essentially a remake of Laird Cregar's "The Lodger" and, if I remember, Alfred Hitchcock's silent movie. Since much of the film's impact depends on our not knowing for certain whether Palance is the Ripper, we can't see him committing any crimes. That's just as well, considering the nature of the crimes. The near absence of violence leaves the weight of the movie on the increasing number of incidents suggesting that Palance is in fact the man that his landlady suspects him of being. (And the husband, Rhys Williams, does not.) But what a clumsy Jack he is. If the Ripper was seen carrying a brown bag, Palance must burn his in his attic and stink up the place. If the Ripper was seen wearing a certain kind of coat, Palance must sneak down to the kitchen in the middle of the night and stuff his into the kitchen stove. And he gets caught every time! Palance, possibly as the result of an airplane accident during WWII, has a face that looks chiseled out of marble. It's spooky as hell without being ugly. So, while Laird Cregar might not have elicited any interest from his hosts' niece, a "showgirl", Palance conceivably could, and does.
The saucy babe is played by a pretty young woman decked out in period clothes, period grooming, singing period songs. The period is the early 1950s. "Ohh la la!" she chirps while attempting a chaste cancan at the local club.
Well, she may be attracted a little to Palance, but her true love is some blandly handsome greasy detective who could benefit from a bit of Jack the Ripper's attention without doing irreparable damage to the movie. A couple of botched nips and tucks might have made him more engaging. Alas, the course of true love never does run smooth. The attraction is asymmetrical. Palance may love her but she's frightened to death when he hits on her too forcefully. There is a chase and Palance is sent up the river. ("So cool, so clean," he says earlier about the Thames. In 1875 you could get cholera just by looking cross-eyed at it.) I enjoyed it, and you might too. Slickly done. -
Zeegrade22 January 2010A 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!
-
localbum24-18 September 2020I can't speak for the 1944 version, but the Jack Palance performance alone makes this flick worth watching. A must for fans. Also some really good foggy London sets.
-
Yes, this movie takes huge historical liberties, as you'd expect from a 50's Hollywood treatment of Jack The Ripper. Actually, I felt the period setting pretty well done and the costumes were all very convincing. It was just the actual facts that were thrown to the four winds and replaced by a script written more like a Charles Dickens novel.
Enter the shady and mysterious lodger, Jack Palance whose unpredictable moods and surliness bring immediate attention to his nosey landlady, who is still happy to take his rent money rather than to ask him to leave. Palance capably handles his part and is suitably weird and creepy, especially when courting the landlady's pretty niece.
Unfortunately, she's also being wooed by a police inspector who is on the The Ripper case. So the seeds of doubt are sown and rivalries become interwoven with biased motivations. This propels everything to an ultimately unhappy though inevitable conclusion.
I found this very watchable and entertaining, if perhaps a bit of it's time. It had a good production quality and good performances all round, although Palance himself really gives the movie the level of depth required to be engaging. -
dougdoepke28 March 2008Curiously tepid re-telling of the Jack the Ripper legend. Jack Palance certainly looks the part. With his rictus-like face, long lean body, and sinister smile, he's the most unusual of figures. However his Ripper comes across as more neurotic than menacing. As his scenes with Smith suggest, he's emotionally vulnerable, soft-spoken, even with a slight unmasculine lisp and a rampant mother-fixation. Now this is an interesting interpretation of the serial killer. Still and all, it works against Palance's appearance and the menace the role needs. In short, it makes for an interesting psychological profile, but not for the imposing personality that would stir an audience. Palance certainly can't be accused of overplaying the role.
There's also too little of the glistening cobblestone streets and alleyways that create the needed background gloom. Likely the budget didn't allow for much of that atmospheric embroidery. Then too, director Hugo Fregonese does't appear to have a stylish feel for the material, which he films in a pretty straightforward unimaginative manner. What the movie does have is a gorgeous Constance Smith in a lively and compelling performance. Whatever happened to her. With her looks and talent, she should qualified for A-list parts, but her career looks a little mysterious, petering out in Italy in the late 50's.
Anyway, it's a good chance to scope out the early Jack Palance in a performance that unfortunately falls short of his absolutely spine-chilling gunfighter in the classic Western Shane (1953). -
SzamarCsacsi12 March 2013The third remake of the 1927 Hitchcock silent classic "The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog" introduces hardly anything new. It's almost a shot-by-shot remake of the previous version from 1944 called The Lodger. Most of the dialog is the same, and the characters as well.
What this film does is it polishes the previous remake to make it a touch better, and it makes it seem slightly more logical. To me, Jack Palance does a better job as the lodger, not just acting wise, but also his charisma seem to fit the character more.
Among the changes there is an added dog to the family, small bits and pieces were changed and the ending was made more plausible. I gave it 6 out of 10, similarly to the 1944 film, because although I do think this one is better, it's not original enough to receive more. -
bkoganbing26 April 2011Something about the Whitechapel killings during Queen Victoria's reign has always gripped the public's imagination. I think it a combination of the youth and beauty of Jack the Ripper's victims and that the case was never solved has contributed to our fascination. That it is unsolved has led some to speculate the Ripper was a prominent person, maybe even a member of the Royal Family as one theory has it.
In Man In The Attic we have yet another speculative theory in the form of a historical novel by Belloc Lowndes. A rather well spoken, but shy man played by Jack Palance who is a research pathologist takes lodging at the home of Rhys Williams and Frances Bavier. Later on their daughter Constance Smith who is a well known actress returns from a tour of the continent and she moves back in with her parents.
No suspense involved here, just the casting of Jack Palance who was up for a Supporting Actor award for playing the cold blooded killer Wilson in Shane tells you right away whom we suspect. Those of us in the audience that is. The future Aunt Bea of Mayberry is the first to suspect her boarder. She alerts Scotland Yard's Byron Palmer who starts to take a look at him.
Palance's performance is calculated and controlled like Wilson in Shane, but this man is very different with different kinds of issues in his life. I could have seen him as Jack The Ripper.
Man In The Attic will entertain and send your brain to thinking about Whitechapel. And there will be no end of books and films on Jack The Ripper. -
"Man in the Attic" is a remake of Hitchcock's "The Lodger" (1927). This is not the only remake--there have been many more nor is it among the best. For my money, the best is Hitchcock's--even if it is a silent film. If you must see another, this 1953 version's as good as any.
The story is set during the time of Jack the Ripper. A weirdo (Jack Palance) moves in to a home where they are renting rooms--and soon the lady of the house (Frances Bavier) begins to think he might be the Ripper. And, as the film progresses, you can see a lot of obvious clues--very obvious clues.
My biggest problem is that there really is very little suspense in the film. The audience isn't misdirected and the film is too linear--too pat. In contrast, "The Lodger" keeps the viewer guessing throughout. Still, it is modestly entertaining--particularly if you can look past that few in the cast are British and that the ending seemed a bit abrupt and tough to believe. -
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. -
Despite being made in 1953, it has the look and feel of a movie made in 1933! In addition, this movie set in London was clearly made on the back-lot of a studio in America. As if to hammer home the London 'look and feel' of the movie, even the suspenseful background music is a slow drawn out melody of Big Ben sounding off.
What really makes it unwatchable (to English viewers) is the comic treasury of terrible British accents. No voice coaching here... just bizarre guesswork by the actors.
Also (in my opinion) the giant Jack Palance is horribly miscast as a shy and socially awkward suspect in this Jack The Ripper yarn. He doesn't wield any kind of affinity with the role of the suspect and spends most of the time standing about the scenery looking lost or telling whoever will listen that he's a misunderstood, lonely outcast.
Incredibly, this movie, about one of the world's most notorious killers, has been padded out with a few flamboyant song and dance routines! Wildly inappropriate and definitely NOT what you'd find anywhere in London in the late 1800s! It just looks and sounds silly.
Other versions of this film are a lot more credible than this offering which seems to have been thrown together simply because Palance was bored and on contract and the studios were not being used for anything else. -
azcowboysingr4 May 2007I found this film to be a really well done thriller...almost worthy of Hitchcock. Although TCM's movie MC said it was a low-budget movie, I didn't see anything that should earn it that designation. The acting was top notch, the sets well constructed, the lighting appropriately "moody", & the horse carriage chase at the end quite exciting & expertly staged. At no time during this movie did I feel bored, in fact, I only took a quick bathroom break because it was either that or mop the floor. If I have anything to "nitpick" about, it is just that the ending made it clear that Jack Palance's character really WAS Jack the Ripper, when in actual fact, the identity of the Ripper has never been established beyond conjecture & half-baked theories by some writers who need to sell books. Why was this? Not because the London police didn't do everything possible to solve those crimes, but simply because the police/forensic abilities of that time period were unable to process information the way it can be done now. True, they did have a few very likely suspects, but before anything could be done to prove the Ripper's identity, he vanished & the killings ceased. Did the Ripper die, as this film (& some others suggest), move to another country, or just feel that he had accomplished what he set out to do? No one will ever really know the answers. To end this, if you get a chance to see this film, do so. It will be a movie that will stand out as one of the best of its type.
-
secondtake22 August 2012Man in the Attic (1953)
Economical, moody, funny and suspenseful both, and overall a smart, tight film. If you're like me you'll not be able to stop watching it even though you know it isn't quite a great movie, not at all.
So. Why doesn't it work? Two main reasons, I think. First, the star, Jack Palance, known for being creepy and a little out of control in short bursts, isn't let loose. In fact, his Pennsylvania grittiness is made poorly into a late 19th Century British researcher who has restraint and brooding mystery. It's just a bad fit, and Palance, always most brilliant as a character actor, doesn't fill up the part at all, try as everyone might.
Which makes me want to emphasize that the rest of the cast is very good or even terrific. The older couple is hilarious and believable, and quite facile with little jokes and jabs. The charming daughter is surprisingly charming despite her thin role (it's a bit caricatured). And the reset of the cast, coming and going, does a solid job.
The second reason the movie wobbles is just the plot, the Jack the Ripper kind of tale that ends up as simple as it seems, even though you are thinking all the while, no way, that's too obvious. Well, I don't want to give any more away, but you'll see.
If you have the choice, see the really terrific earlier version, "The Lodger," with George Sanders and Laird Cregar. That one needs no apologies. Nor, exactly, does the "first" of these (there is no first with such an iconic idea of a killer living in your house) by Hitichcock, also called "The Lodger," which adds the huge Hitchcockian twist that the wrong man is arrested as The Ripper and this man, as usual, has to prove his innocence on the run. See that one, though it's a silent film and many of the common prints out there are poor.
As I started to say, though, I think if you start this you'll finish it. It's really fast, it has great almost archetypical foggy London night scenes, and it has lots of banter that you have to be paying attention to or you'll miss the wit. There are some dismissible choreographed upper crust dance hall scenes (that sounds like an oxymoron, but the dancing is pure chorus line junk and it's occurring in a upscale theater as if a serious London revue). And there is Palance, draining every scene he's in. -
dwpollar4 July 20141st 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.