Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

People are voting emotionally.

Best movie ever!

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Serial killers will always be popular because there is a human fascination with the lurid, the sexual and the violent. They epitomize fear, and when making a movie about a copycat serial killer, who better to imitate than the most notorious serial killer of all time, Jack the Ripper? "The Lodger" represents the fourth version of the book by Marie Belloc Lowndes, including one directed by Alfred Hitchcock himself. Although it's nowhere near as good as anything the Master of Suspense put out, it is nonetheless an engaging and twisty mystery.There are two stories that are at the center of the film, and as the story goes on, they become entwined. First is the story of two detectives, Chandler Manning (Alfred Molina) and Street Wilkensen (Shane West) who are on the trail of a killer who is imitating Jack the Ripper in West Hollwood. Second is the story of a landlady, Ellen Bunting (Hope Davis) who is curious about her new tenant, the attractive but aloof Malcolm (Simon Baker). There are a few subplots thrown in for good measure, but really, these are the only ones that matter.Actually, that's the film's biggest problem. Writer/director David Ondaatje pads the film out, particularly in the first hour. While this helps camouflage the story's red herrings, the subject matter he includes is rather dull. The soundtrack is also uneven. For the most part, it's a solid and effective homage to the creepy music that one always finds in these sorts of movies. However, there are times when it doesn't work, and instead becomes, of all things, melodramatic! The acting is good all around, though. The cast is predominantly made up of character actors on the edge of stardom. Alfred Molina has worked his way up the ladder for the past 25 years, and is just now earning the top-billing he so justly deserves. Manning is a hard boiled detective with a temper. Molina is no Sam Spade, but I'm glad that the producers took a chance on casting an unusual choice, because Molina is always interesting. His co-star, Shane West, tries to shed his bad-boy image, and while no standout, he's not bad. Indie film favorite Hope Davis is also making headway into mainstream fare, and she's terrific as the mousy Ellen. This was clearly a chance for Simon Baker to cash in on his popularity from his show, "The Mentalist." I haven't seen that, but he caught my attention in the underrated "The Affair of the Necklace." Baker is excellent as the seductive lodger; we can see his soft-spoken charm, but there is always an aura of danger around him, and we can never fully trust him. Also on hand are the always reliable Philip Baker Hall, Rebecca Pigeon (aka Mrs. David Mamet) and Donal Logue (who, like West, is an ER alum). Hall and Pigeon are solid, if underused, but Logue is flat as Ellen's jerk husband.The film is always interesting to look at. Most noirs of this ilk used black and white film to their advantage, but this is 2009, and the film has to make money (which is surprising coming from an indie film). However, Ondaatje uses the color to his advantage. The noir feeling is still there, but it has an interesting feeling of warmth. And I loved how he and his cinematographer David A. Armstrong filmed the rain; it's just like the golden oldies.It may not be Hitchcock, but this mystery is still pretty good. We don't know the true identity of the killer until the end, and while there are two main suspects, we also know that we can't rule anyone else out either, which makes things more interesting. And for a movie with no CGI, it's always interesting to look at. And watch.

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.

This is not really a remake of the previous movies concerning a mysterious lodger at an Inn that might be Jack the Ripper. This takes place in modern Los Angeles, and concerns a couple that need to rent their guest house, and the Wife (Hope Davis) rents to a mysterious stranger that might be responsible for a series of Jack the Ripper type murders occurring. Alfred Molina is the detective in charge of the murders who brought a suspect to court 7 years earlier, who was then executed for similar murders, but now the murders appear to be exactly the same as the executed guy. In fact, as the investigation goes on, the killer is following exactly the Jack the Ripper killings. This is a good one, the whole premise is very interesting, especially to fans of Jack the Ripper movies. Simon Baker plays the mysterious lodger, but then again, nobody has seen him except the Wife, and when an investigation takes place, developments dictate, everything is not as it suggests. Good mystery, check this one out.

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