Watch The Lodger For Free

the audience applauded

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Writer director, David Ondaatje puts a new spin on the Marie Belloc Lowndes' story, which has been filmed a number of times before, most notably by Alfred Hitchcock and John Brahm.Although the basics are there, the story has shifted to modern day West Hollywood, which is in the grip of a serial killer emulating the Ripper killings of 1880's London. When a lodger, (Simon Baker) rents a secluded room from a couple, Ellen and Joe Bunting (Hope Davis and Donal Logue), near where the killings have taken place, our suspicions immediately fall on him.However the movie shifts the suspect focus around. Chandler Manning (Alfred Molina), the detective who investigates the case, has a few secrets of his own, as do the Buntings. As the murders keep happening, Ellen Bunting becomes dangerously attracted to the lodger. Ondaatje brings a psychological twist to this retelling because we are never sure if Ellen is merely imagining the lodger. The film has a surprise ending - clever, but maybe a little too clever.The film updates the story; we didn't need a straight remake - Hitchcock's silent version did it well with that famous glass ceiling shot of the lodger pacing his room, and John Brahm did a classy job with the 1940's remake starring Laird Cregar. Another period piece just wouldn't have cut it.Although the movie works pretty well for the most part, and is made with care, Ondaatje overdoes the Hitchcock homage - it didn't need it. Surely we are past the point, thanks to Brian De Palma and others, where deliberate references to the Hitchcock touch are remotely fresh or novel. Here we have the telescoping camera technique from "Vertigo", the emphasis on the word knife from 1929's "Blackmail", and at least half-a-dozen others. They are in-jokes that detract from the story.Simon Baker brings some of his "Mentalist" charm to the role and is a disarming villain - if he is indeed the villain. Alfred Molina and Hope Davis deliver powerful performances: he as the conflicted detective, and she as the conflicted wife of a husband who also seems to have another side to his character.The performances save the film. The lodger works well enough for what it is, but I don't think there is much danger of it replacing the Hitchcock or Brahm versions in the memory of anyone who has seen them.

***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.

Updated and rethought story of the strange lodger in a home that may or may not be Jack the Ripper. However in this new version the question is the nice man, Simon Baker, renting a room from Hope Davis responsible for the Jack the Ripper like killing in Los Angeles . Alfred Molina is the cop on the trail of the killer. A very well acted film, with everyone hitting the right notes for their parts. The film really isn't a strict retelling of the story, rather it uses bits of the original to launch off in new directions, certainly Hope Davis's damaged landlord never came from Victorian London. Unfortunately the film collapses thanks to two errors in judgment. The first is the script is too much into the realm of cliché when it comes to Molina's story arc. He's the good zealous cop who ends up becoming a scapegoat for the failures of the rest of the police. The material isn't bad, but for a film that is so desperately trying to break the mold of a well worn story that to have him be the only one who understands what's going on and that he gets blamed like almost every other cop drama is too much to ask. It brings everything down. The other problem with the film is that the director is a bit too gimmick happy. Take for example the early sequence where Hope Davis is eating breakfast and the TV is on and you get fancy camera angles through her glass or an increase in volume when the work knife is heard on TV. You also have fast motion and slow motion sequences and shots designed to look cool. The best tricks are the ones we never see, unfortunately with this film every one is revealed as if with a neon sign and fireworks. I spent more time watching the director attempt to be clever then I was watching the police try to figure out who the killer was. This is a film with very good part that are hurt by some very bad ones. Worth a look but only if you don't pay for it.

I have an undying love of true crime movies. There is something automatically fascinating about a disturbing story of true crime when there is the added effect that it is at least loosely based on real events. It's one of the most important things that makes me love movies like Zodiac or In Cold Blood or Dog Day Afternoon or even Silence of the Lambs, even though the real life element of that one is, ah, a little less specific. The Lodger, as you know, was Alfred Hitchcock's first major film, made in 1927, well before sound. The new Lodger has a tough time justifying itself, but it is not entirely without effect.The movie tells the story of a mysterious recurrence of Jack-the-Ripper-style murders, although it takes the crimes out of the London fog and replaces it on the wet streets of Los Angeles. A series of brutal prostitute murders have been determined to be exact replicas of very specific Ripper murders, even positioning the bodies the same places and making similar efforts in geography. Complicating matters is the fact that a man has already been jailed and executed for the murders, which unfortunately start happening again. Meanwhile, an unhappy housewife across town is routinely abandoned by her deadbeat husband, who repeatedly tells her basically to take her medication and leave him alone, and by the way, why can't she make herself useful and find a lodger for that old shed in the backyard. Money doesn't grow on trees, woman.She does find a lodger, one who acts sufficiently mysterious and suspicious, and for a while the movie turns into your standard murder mystery thriller, although I was glad to see the addition in the third act of the clouding issue of an unstable mind. It's a story-telling technique that is very easy to screw up, but when it's used right it can add a whole different experience to an otherwise straight-forward and uninteresting story. It is not used here as well as I've seen it used before (at least in originality), but it's true that it adds a much-needed extra layer to an otherwise insufficient story. Unfortunately, because the rest of the movie is a murder mystery the style of which is far too familiar by now, the instability idea seems like an effort to add something to an otherwise weak movie, and it's just not enough to make the movie at all memorable. In fact, some moviegoers will find it outwardly laughable.Alfred Molina plays a detective who is striving to solve the case, although I would expect an actor of his caliber to be spending his time on better movies than this. Unfortunately, despite his performance and a number of other mildly impressive roles, the movie is also peppered with horrible acting and ridiculously badly written characters.The lodger himself, first of all, is of the variety that acts extremely suspicious in ways that could only possibly happen if he were really the killer. When the wife accidentally discovers him burning clothing in the barbecue, he calmly explains that he was just trying to dry them. In a good mystery, perfectly normal behavior is made to be suspicious by the context of other actions, the music, the performances, etc. Who the hell dries pants on a barbecue?There is also the issue of a psychologist who analyzes the police's evidence about the mysterious killer, and offers an explanation that is little more than a lot of wordy nonsense that sounds like it was thrown together by a Psychology undergrad at UCLA with no other purpose than to sound impressive. Sadly, it doesn't. The ex-wife of Molina's character is also a mental case herself who, for reasons that I won't reveal, is unable to stand the sight of her husband. When she does at one point in the film, she descends into a hysterical fit of screaming which, had it gone on for about another three seconds, would have been enough for me to give up and fling the DVD out the window.But the movie's biggest problem is that it comes off as a standard mystery, the first half of which is designed to show why everyone is a suspect and the second half designed to deliver a thrilling finale that, when it comes, just isn't all that thrilling. The murder investigation is full of movie-miracles (like a footprint which is leaked to the press and printed "actual size" on the front page of the newspaper) but the real letdown doesn't come until the final scene, lifted directly out of Psycho and full of psychobabble nonsense. And the psychologist's analysis, believe it or not, takes place before the actual arrest. Fastest mental analysis ever!! But it's not so much that the psychological explanation doesn't make sense as much as the fact that the reasons given may send your palm(s) flying rapidly to your forehead. So be advised