Reviews & Ratings for
Man in the Attic More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

26 reviews in total

---

18 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Jackie's back and Aunt Bea's got him, 30 July 2005

Author: blanche-2 from United States

Good, 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.

---

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Aunt Bea Does London, 9 December 2005

Author: Bucs1960 from West Virginia

This 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.

---

14 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Is Jack Palance Jack the Ripper??, 17 September 2006

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

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.

---

9 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
The Artful Lodger, 19 January 2007

Author: Hitchcoc from United States

Pretty 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.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Palance plays his "Jack" card, 21 May 2007

Author: theowinthrop from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In 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.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Not as good as Hitchcock's version, 10 April 2007

Author: Ross from United Kingdom

This 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.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Neat take on The Lodger, 23 January 2003

Author: Space_Mafune from Newfoundland, Canada

This 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.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Decent Jack the Ripper yarn, 14 October 2007

Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England

There 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.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A really well done thriller., 4 May 2007

Author: azcowboysingr from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I 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.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Down these mean streets....., 14 October 2006

Author: Robert J. Maxwell (rmax304823@yahoo.com) from Deming, New Mexico, USA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A 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.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history