GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Leofwine_draca Unfortunately THE LODGER is one of those films which loses me from the outset thanks to the all-too-glossy "look" and feel. Given the nature of the subject matter this should be a production crying out for grim and gritty styling, but instead this has a slick sheen of the kind seen in US TV shows like CSI.In addiction, the story is nothing to write home about, despite the promise inherent in the premise. It's an erstwhile remake of the silent Hitchcock movie of the same name, presented in the modern day, with two seemingly separate plot strands: weary detectives are tracking a modern day Jack the Ripper, while a houseowner gets to grips with her mysterious new tenant.Sadly, the detective plot is superficial and largely uninteresting, purely because it's so hackneyed; even a solid actor like Alfred Molina can do little with the material, which I found boring more than anything else. Meanwhile, the 'tenant' plot is equally lame, having been done to death in many a 1990s-era psycho-thriller, and the characters are so underwritten as to be cardboard.Lame attempts to build mystery are all too familiar and the double-twist ending is predictable in the extreme. Sadly, there are all too many of these middle-of-the-road thrillers churned out by Hollywood; they contain zero memorable material yet at the same time aren't bad enough to stay in the memory for the wrong reasons. They're just insipid and entirely forgettable.

jotix100 Marie Belloc's novel, serves once again as the basis of this 2009 treatment that doesn't go anywhere. Partly, the fault lies with the treatment of its well intentioned writer/director, David Ondaatje. His inexperience, perhaps, was the factor that this movie probably went into DVD right away, as it appears the commercial run didn't go anywhere since it must have come and gone without much publicity, or word of mouth.The locale of the story has been changed from London to a rainy Los Angeles, seen mostly at night. The serial killer who is killing prostitutes in a seedy part of town is following in the steps of Jack the Ripper, the famed English killer. This sick man finds digs in what appears to be an uninhabited garage in the back of a house that has seen better days. The mysterious lodger catches the landlady's fancy; this woman is stuck in a bad marriage. She looks as though she is not dealing with reality, but the attraction the new renter has upon her proves to be too much.When the dead women begin to surface, detective Chandler Manning has to face guilty feelings because the present killer has the same M.O. as the man he has sent to the electric chair a short time before. Manning has a suspicion the murders follow the same logic as the ones committed almost a century ago in London. His obsession gets the best of him, making him lose perspective.The picture fails because the way Mr. Ondaatje presents the story. There is no suspense in most of the action. If the viewer happens to be a fan of the genre, he would notice things that will spoil the fun for him. The director doesn't create enough atmosphere to do justice to what he tried to do.The talented cast is totally wasted. Alfred Molina and Hope Davis are excellent actors, but the way they were asked to portray their characters is not believable. For one, the detective of Mr. Molina, or the vapid landlady of Ms. Davis, will not add anything to their brilliant careers.

Jay Harris A little background first.In 1888, In London Englamd Jack The Ripper savagely killed 6 ladies of the evening. Even though there were many suspects, & many theories, we never found out who he was or why this happened.In about 1925 Maria Belloc Loundes wrote the novel THE LODGER. It was a success, In 1926/7 Alfred Hitchcock who was starting to create a name for himself in Movies, made the silent version of the novel. We know what happened to Mr Hitchcock & his career,In 1944, the next version of The Lodger was made, starring Laird Cregar.Mr.Cregar was a huge man, only in his 20's very tall & very heavy. His very presence in any scene in any of the few films he made (he was only 28 when he passed on)commanded attention from the audience. This version was directed by John Brahm who was(at the time) made suspenseful movies 'ala' Hitchcock. It was a big hit and considered one of the better films of that year.Now we come to the current version. First, what was good in the film,the settings & costumes were very good,The killing were not seen in total, You hear victims scream & limbs moving.(this is the way they did it in both earlier versions). The acting was good by a talented cast; headed by Alfred Molina and Shane West as the 2 detectives assigned to the case. Hope Davis & Donal Logue as the couple who rent the guest house to Simon Baker, Philip Baker Hall as an FBI agent.Rachel Leigh Cook & the ever reliable, Rebecca Pidgeon also have major roles.We do not learn who the killer is until almost the end of movie, It is a slight but not unexpected surprise.Now for what I did not like. They changed the location from a slimy section of London Eng. in 1888 to modern Los Angeles, West Hollywood. The area is far from slimy,some parts are rundown but not like in the movie. I KNOW because I call the West Hollywood area my home.They have a few scenes in pouring rain, we rarely ever have such rain as depicted.This version was written & directer by David Ondaatje.Maybe because I may have seen too many films of this nature, I was not impressed. It had a very brief run in Jan.2009 & released to DVD in March 2009,.There are some nice extras on the DVD<Ratings: **1/2 out of 4..73 points out of 100.. IMDb 6.. out of 10

SJinSeaTac This I have to admit is a very B-movie. If it were not for the actors in it I wouldn't even call it a C-movie. However the storyline is very engaging. I wouldn't dare compare it to any other movie however and most of the critics have already slammed it because "Hitchcock's version was better" (although this movie has been made by several others as well).The director has done a fairly good job with the budget he has and has made some very good decisions at least in casting the actors in their roles. The movie is mostly a "copycat" film, but the concepts are still the same. Obviously it is not possible to follow the storyline of "jack the ripper has left England and is now in the United States" as in the original Lodger story because it is now 2009, which in the end doesn't really help or hurt the film at all. It was also nice to see Rebecca Pidgeon in a film again although her character is mostly just thrown in to "tie" the ending together in a "Psycho-esque" kind of way. Donal Logue seems like the typical husband who doesn't SEEM to understand his wife, played by Hope Davis, who may or may not be imagining things. And finally Alfred Molina is basically cast as himself, stubborn, difficult, and determined.Everyone is a suspect and Ondaatje does a very good job keeping the pace while switching seamlessly between the detectives investigating and the Bunting residence where "The Lodger" is. However, whether or not you feel "cheated" by the end of the film is up to you. I however was not very surprised by the modern day twists that are thrown at the audience in the end. Definitely worth seeing in the theater if you can.