joe-pearce-1 Usually, I don't bother reviewing something I dislike, preferring to congratulate achievement rather than to condemn ineptitude. But ineptitude runs rampant here, especially given the talent. I've rated it 2 because if nothing else (and there is nothing else), it does have some very fine camera-work and effective enough music. The problem is that there is really no story in this film. From the time Swank takes her $3,800 Brooklyn apartment, we know she's in some kind of danger. From 15 minutes later on, we know exactly what that danger consists of, and who poses it to her. After that, it is nothing but a long series of voyeuristic observations and meanderings through keyholes, panels, drains - you name it, it works for observability - and that's it. We never learn anything about any of the characters beyond what they do for a living and why Swank has left her husband. We never learn anything about what made the madman who owns the building into a madman. We never learn anything about his grandfather, who brought him up, except that Gramps doesn't seem to like him too much. When Madman Landlord knocks off Grandpa, we have no idea why he does so, nor what he does for the rest of the story with the body. When Swank, in mortal danger (mostly of understanding the plot) hardly registers the sight of her dead husband literally hanging around, it's hard to believe that she ever loved him, let alone still does. Swank is shown as an apparently important doctor at her hospital, yet she seems to just drop in and out of it at will, and go directly from heroically saving lives to complaining to a colleague about her married life. Worse, and this is really worse, from the time she enters the new apartment for the first time, about 85% of the rest of the film takes place in that apartment, yet the viewer has absolutely no idea what that apartment looks like. Despite the fact that she and her separated husband seem truly astonished that she can find such a wonderful and large apartment for $3,800 a month, to me (a Brooklyn resident), it looks like little more than a dilapidated and pretty small apartment, possessing nothing to sell it except a couple of window views of the outer world. The camera work is so intensely close up and restrictive that one never gets any sense of proportion as to what the total apartment looks like, one room from another, the true size of the place, what room leads to the next, etc., etc. There is not one regularly lighted scene at any time in the apartment. Does Swank not have light bulbs or something with which to open the curtains on her windows? All is murk! When the final, rather gargantuan battle between Swank and Morgan arrives (it's like a knives, axes, needles and staple gun version of the great fight in 1952's SCARAMOUCHE, but even the candlelit opera house that one takes place in has a hundred times the visual clarity of anything seen in RESIDENT, but at least this is where the excellent camera-work mostly comes in), most of the time I can't keep track of where they are fighting it or where Swank is headed, so little definition has been given to either the apartment or the rest of the building up to that point. All the outdoor scenes (little more than for Swank's jogging moments) are filmed on location in Brooklyn, but all the interiors seem to have been filmed in New Mexico - and in a rather minuscule part of New Mexico at that - like a darkened sound stage. Given that such excellent actors as Swank, Morgan, Lee and Pace have nothing to act except (in order) hysteria, madness, old age and blandness, it's no wonder they can't register much, especially as the screenplay is of no help to anybody and the storyline remains almost totally without background. I actually felt cheated to see two-time Academy Award winner Swank in such a mishmash (and she's responsible for it, since she produced it; are good roles that hard to find with two Oscars on the shelf?), and to see Christopher Lee's name added to the cast obviously to sell the film to people like myself, since he doesn't have ten lines to speak in the entire film and cannot be on the screen for a grand total of more than about three minutes. It's the kind of film that asks the question, Why was this made?, and then proceeds not to be able to answer it.

msmchug If you want a good creepy film.. The resident is perfect for the job. The story gets going quick when Hilary Swank moves into the perfect New York apartment at a great price.. What's the catch? Her landlord creeps into her room at night, watches her in the bath and eventually drugs and abuses her. There is an old uncle hanging about and at first you think he is going to be evil.. But that's a red herring. The film made me squirm on loads of occasions and when Hilary fits CCTV in her home then watches the footage you feel horror for her. The movie is quick paced and believable. I liked the ending because she finds out what the landlord is up to then after a short chase around the apartment she kills him. Really enjoyed it.

SnoopyStyle Dr. Juliet Devereau (Hilary Swank) is recently broken up with her boyfriend from Jack (Lee Pace) and rents a place from Max (Jeffrey Dean Morgan).It's your basic lone-girl-in-big-bad-world horror. It's not at all scary and it is horribly boring. There is one major reveal midway through which made the last half very creepy but it really doesn't solve the problem of the incredibly slow pace. IMDb says the budget was $20M which really surprised me. It must be all in paying Hilary Swank because none of it shows up on the screen. It has the look of a B-level horror. The set is weak. It's a good cure for insomnia.

p-stepien In the deja vu land of recycled horror motifs comes a reboot of sorts for the legendary Hammer Studios. Cheated and needing a change of scenery Dr. Juliet Devereau (Hillary Swank) seeks a new apartment to fit within her 'meager' earnings as a New York surgeon (poor girl). Seemingly per chance she is offered a spacious apartment in a building owned by the charming, if somewhat off-beat Max (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) and his eerie grand-father August (Christopher Lee). Given the affordable cut-rate price Juliet decides to move in. Voyeuristic camera angles soon however suggest that someone lurks behind the wall of the apartment following every move of the unwitting object of obsession.Barely featuring the slightest hints of originality retreading well known thrills "The Resident" fails to offer any fresh resolution, somewhat surprising that Swank decided to personally attend to producing the stale script material. Disjointed at best the sole saving graces are the distinctive crazed gazes of Christopher Lee, which brings quality within his limited screen time, and a decent outing by Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Max is initiated as an intriguing well-defined introvert with severe social disability, perfunctory suggestions as to his strongly skewed upbringing giving some slightly contrite backdrop. However any psychological depth offered by the oddly affable, if deranged, Max takes a hit, when the movie takes a utterly predictable turn into "Fatal Attraction" brutal denouement, throwing any pretence of a more complex thriller into the rabbit cooker.Derivative at best Swank fails to truly register, instead showing up as a cardboard character with no real impact on proceedings. And not even showing off a bit of naked flesh helps her case (or the movie in general for that matter). Several high notes of suspenseful build-up are registered, but far more memorable is the completely misplaced moronic concept to do a 'flashback' sequence, which 'unearths' the depths of Max's obsession. Not only is it overly long rehashing multiple scenes already shown to extend runtime by some 5 minutes, but additionally it is strikingly redundant, as the flashback adds absolutely no meat or true reveal to the story.