Very well executed

Intense, gripping, stylish and poignant

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

Adapting the novel by Marie Belloc Lowndes, 17 years after Hitchcock had done so well with his silent film version, director John Brahm here creates a literate, exciting, spooky Victorian era thriller. During the time of Jack the Rippers' bloody reign of terror, a man who identifies himself as "Slade" (Laird Cregar) rents some rooms from an older couple named the Bontings (Cedric Hardwicke, Sara Allgood). He keeps odd hours, and supposedly needs the space to perform some sort of "experiments". Ellen Bonting (Allgood) comes to suspect that this eccentric gentleman "Slade" might in fact be The Ripper. This new tenant soon develops a fixation on Saras' comely niece Kitty Langley (Merle Oberon), a musical performer.The cast is tremendously good in this kind of setting, and the story, as told by screenwriter Barre Lyndon and director Brahm, is efficient and entertaining. It moves along quite well - even though it gives Oberon an opportunity to strut her stuff in two numbers, these are over fairly quickly. Lyndons' script has some noticeable themes to it, such as the cleansing power of water, and of the supposed "evil" that can be found in the most beautiful of women. The sets, the costumes, and the superior black & white cinematography by the talented Lucien Ballard all add substantial value to the production. It's as wonderfully atmospheric as so many other b & w horror films from the 30s and 40s. Some of the best moments actually take place when the score cuts out and we're left with ambient sound on the soundtrack. Brahm was one filmmaker who really knew how to generate suspense.Cregar is excellent in the title role. Even though we're never in any real doubt as to "Slade"s' identity, he dares to invite some sympathy for this deluded, deranged character. He makes all of his scenes riveting. Oberon is enticing as the young woman who will become his object of desire. The dapper, elegant George Sanders is fun as the Scotland Yard detective in charge of the case. Hardwicke and Allgood are fine as the landlords, and he's the one who urges some calm and reason while her imagination starts going wild. Aubrey Mather, Queenie Leonard, Doris Lloyd, David Clyde, Helena Pickard, and Frederic Worlock are all fine in support.Well worth a look, especially if one is partial to the genre films of this era, and / or they have a fascination for any Ripper-related story.Same story filmed again nine years later as "Man in the Attic", with Jack Palance in the lead.Eight out of 10.

Rarely seen today, this version of "The Lodger" was shown in January, 2014, at BFI Southbank, London, as part of its "Gothic" season. Unfortunately it was the version mangled by British censors. The attempted murder of Kitty (Merle Oberon) is impossible to understand because her apparent strangulation is interrupted by two or possibly three censor cuts. Then, far from being mown down by bullets (as another review mentions), Slade (Laird Cregar) is seen being cornered by police before, very abruptly, falling through a window into the Thames. It's a great shame that this butchered version is preserved in the National Film Archive.

Someone's stalking the streets of Whitechapel, wielding a blade against former dancehall girls and leaving their shredded corpses in back alleys. The police are baffled. The citizens are frantic. And Laird Cregar is delicious! I first saw Cregar in I Wake Up Screaming, and I was instantly hooked by his acting abilities. He's sort of a precursor to Vincent Price. And, oddly enough, Price did the radio program version of The Lodger after this film was released. Cregar is not your typical leading man. He's about 6'3 and 300lbs. I haven't been able to find out a lot about him, but I had heard he was a homosexual. This all comes together rather interestingly because the character he plays, Mr. Slade, has a rather strange if somewhat vague sexual attraction to his now deceased brother. Pretty racy stuff for 1944! But, to add to this, one of the main suspects in the real Jack the Ripper killings is Francis Tumblety, who had a well-known hatred for women and I believe was arrested for doing some nasty things with the fellows in or near Whitechapel around the time of the Ripper's nightly jaunts. Curiouser and curiouser! Some liberties had to be taken with the plot, due to the fact that censors didn't want the word "prostitute" flowing off the tongues of the actors. So, Jack has an issue with dancehall girls and actresses(this is 1888, so, not film actresses) and believes they caused the downfall of his brother. Therefore, Jack must hack! Unfortunately, you only get to see his knife at the very end of the movie, but Cregar makes up for it with his tour de force acting and the cinematography is superb. Several scenes stand out, most of them with Cregar, such as when he's been injured and is prowling the catwalks, holding his injured neck, and bars of light flash over his face as he moves towards the camera. Or when he's cornered by the brilliant George Sanders and half of Scotland Yard in one of the upper levels of the theater house, his knife finally out and ready for action--Cregar's bulging eyes stare down his hunters like a beast at bay with the only soundtrack being his labored breathing after his body has been pumped full of several bullets(another thing I liked--he didn't just drop over dead after one shot).The only thing that this movie lacked was more scenes between Cregar and Sanders. That would have made this a 10/10 for me as these two are some of my favorite actors of the time. Cregar is shy, sensitive, and refined as the eccentric Mr. Slade, a mysterious "pathologist" who comes to a residence seeking lodgings for his work. He's taken in by an older couple who also have a young maid and a niece living at the home. Mr. Slade keeps rather odd hours, you see, and he doesn't do a very good job of covering up his work. You will have to overlook the fact that 1940's cinema probably knew nothing about the forensics of murder or blood-splatter, etc. It would be a foolish thing for a serial killer to take up lodging with a family when he could be spotted at any time with bloody clothes(and given the nature of his work, VERY bloody). Merle Oberon is the naive Kitty, the niece of the older couple, and her profession and her beauty create a great conflict in Mr. Slade. On one hand, he finds her very attractive, but on the other, he remembers what sort of females did his brother in and that means Slade might have to do a little carving on her.You really do want to give Slade the benefit of the doubt, and the entire time up until the end, I was suspecting that they were totally wrong about him and that his eccentric behavior was meant to throw the viewer off the track. He's a very sympathetic character, even though he wants to have sex with his brother and kills women about once a week(cast the first stone, as they say), and Cregar's performance is probably the best of his career, not to mention the fact he created one of the best villains of all time--sadly probably not as well known as it should be.This is mandatory viewing for you. Light the lantern, don your coat and cane, and make your way over the cobblestone streets. But, mind the fog.

A strange man rents a room at a London house while Jack the Ripper terrorizes the city. His peculiar behavior has people wondering if he is the killer. The expressionistic cinematography, marked by foggy nights and shadowy figures, helps create an eerie atmosphere. Oberon is fine as an actress that the lodger takes an interest in. Also good are Sanders as an inspector, who oddly openly discusses his case with everyone, and Hardwicke and Allgood as the landlords. The film made Cregar a star, but sadly the portly actor suffered a fatal heart attack at 28 after making only one other film. Unfortunately, the visual elegance is undercut by the lackluster and obvious script.