joe-pearce-1 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.

Scarecrow-88 Essentially an American re-working of John Brahm's masterpiece, THE LODGER(..itself a reworking of Hitchcock's silent), director Hugo Fregonese's MAN IN THE ATTIC is still a commendable, atmospheric take on the notorious Jack the Ripper with Jack Palance taking a crack at the infamous White Chapel serial killer, and completely mesmerizing in the role, in my opinion, displaying the tormented soul behind a calm exterior slowly beginning to falter as his infatuation and desire for famous dance hall actress Lily Bonner(Constance Smith)grows. This version is less subtle than Brahm's film with dialogue, behavior, and certain situations often implicating the mysterious lodger, Jack Slade, more than the previous incarnation. For instance, Helen Harley(Frances Bavier, Aunt Bea on the Andy Griffith Show)almost immediately suspects Slade of being the Ripper, never trusting him and always snooping about trying to prove that he is. The film has a scene where Slade talks about his mother to great length calling to our attention why he targets the hookers and female drunks which leave bars for their respected homes. An interesting difference in this film version is that Lily falls in love with Slade, even planting a kiss on him(..I love the reaction of Palance, completely taken aback and discomforted with such an embrace). There are many instances, though, where this is almost shot-for-shot similar to Brahm's film such as Slade's burning materials which could implicate him and the way the murders are set up which instantly bring to mind THE LODGER.The film opens with a White Chapel murder, followed by Slade asking the Harleys, William(Rhys Williams)and Helen for a room to let. Soon Slade becomes acquainted with their niece, Lily, bound for super-stardom, and the family dog who takes a liking to him. Slade is withdrawn and quiet, mysterious and creepy, leaving the house at night to supposedly work on his research of blood diseases at a nearby hospital(..he's a pathologist;often working in the Harley's attic he's also paying for monthly). Soon Scotland Yard Inspector Warwick(Byron Palmer, a poor contrast to the great George Sanders)is passing by the Harley's to question Lily regarding the death of a former dance hall queen murdered by the Ripper(..also using his advantages as a detective to get a date with her;himself interested with Lily after seeing her perform one of her lurid shows)and locking horns with Slade who finds his terminology for murderers sickening and crude. This film, unlike THE LODGER, has Slade slowly getting more and more paranoid because of the nervous attitudes of those around him yearning for trust despite the fact that his behavior is indeed questionable. And, the finale changes drastically(..although, I rather like it about as well as the fantastic chase through the theater of THE LODGER)with Slade leaving the theater, after halting himself from stabbing Lily out of his love and devotion for her, forcing through guards, grabbing a coach, driving horses down the streets of London as Insp. Warwick(..and the police)are in hot pursuit. It's interesting comparing the performances between Laird Cregar(..who is nothing short of phenomenal)and Palance, even though I often loathe such things. Palance is always nervous(..look how he fingers the rim of his hat while talking to Lily or others), or on end, for the most part, able to control his emotions, particularly around Warwick(..although, magnificently, Fregonese's camera is able to capture his detest for the inspector and his descriptions for Jack the Ripper, or murderers in general)who challenges him the most. 20th Century Fox(..who also produced THE LODGER)again produce an effective period mood, with wonderful sets and stunning noirish photography. This is an undiscovered gem that is not talked about near enough, which is a shame, mainly because the cast isn't as strong(..or as British)as THE LODGER. Palance's faithful owe it to themselves to check this out.

Joe Drommel I recently saw an old movie from 1953 called "Man In The Attic." It stars Constance Smith a young Jack Palance. No spoilers below. Evaluations only. The setting is London of the past, where a scientist (Palance) who boards at a family's home is suspected of being the infamous Jack the Ripper. Cons: Much of the acting was wooden, some of the stage-show scenes were downright ridiculous or at least out of place, and the accents were truly awful (especially seeing Frances Bavier--Aunt Bee from Andy Griffith--try and do an English accent! Very funny as she tries at it all the way through-- the way she tries to say "bag" as a Brit, and just sounds like she's from Alabama: "bayyg" "bayyg"). Pros: I liked how all the confusion made it frustratingly impossible to determine if the 'evidence' was saying it was or was not Palance, and they did that on purpose. Is he deeply troubled because of his childhood experiences, or is he actually the madman Jack the Ripper? So hard to tell during the film, and that's the hook! Almost Hitchcockian in that way. So, obviously I thought the story line was good, and the progression-to-arc was very textbook. You can tell this would make an excellent book----which it had, actually. It had been adapted from a book called The Lodger by a lady called Marie Adelaide Belloc Lowndes (I never heard of her before). The movie ended somewhat too abruptly, and without so much as a post-climax wrap-up or epilogue (said epilogues seeming to be more or less a post-modern convention and conspicuously 'absent' from the older films), but one assumes that the novel holds the appropriate denouement. Overall it exceeded my expectations; it was a worthy rental, a brief movie at that, and so I recommend it to you.

rixrex Not 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.