When this two part mini-series premiered back in 1988 was a major happening everywhere, because of the producers' self-indulgence claiming that for the first time the true identity of the most infamous serial killer that the world ever known, would be disclosed in an Anglo-American co-production with an $11 million budget (provided by Thames and CBS), shot entirely on film and starring the international British star, Michael Caine, fresh from his Oscar winning role in "Hannah and Her Sisters".
Well, the conspiracy theory around the Jack the Ripper's identity and motivations presented here was, in fact, territory covered before on the cinema by the superior "Murder by Decree" ('79) and on the literary world by the book "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" written by Stephen Knight & first published in 1976, minus the more interesting parts of it, which was the British Royal family & the Freemasonry involvement to cover up a secret marriage between the second-in-line to the throne, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale and grandson of Queen Victoria and Annie Crook, a catholic working class girl, which begot a daughter that could be a future threat to the throne of Britain.
Kudos to the screenwriters David Wickes and Derek Marlowe for trying to avoid repeating the same plot devices & resolutions, offering instead the same guilty, but way different motivation for committing the murders, the problem is that the story became less exciting, less thrilling and not that satisfactory, especially in the final act when Jack the Ripper is finally, unmasked and caught.
This production runs past 3 hours long and is filled with unnecessary scenes and characters, like Jane Seymour who adds nothing to the plot or the irritating reporter, and very little screen time was given to the really important ones, like the ill-fated prostitutes, which some of them (with the exception of Susan George as Catherine Eddowes and Lysette Anthony as Mary Kelly) appears almost like extended extras. There's also too many "red herrings" and loose ends to their contributions to the plot. The pace is also too slow with the editing reminding more of a "soap-opera", it lacks momentum and suspense, needed a more gloomy tone to create the suited atmosphere for telling this story.
Michael Caine was paid the large sum of 1 million to appearing in the central role of Frederick Abberline of Scotland Yard, the real life Chief Inspector assigned to investigate the Jack the Ripper case, so the producers took care that the camera was always on him, neglecting the needed focus on the crimes and the relevance that some of the supporting characters have on the overall plot.
In terms of performances, Caine without doubts, gave it all to the character (even if he has a tendency to go 'over-the-top' in some scenes) and he was, deservedly, the Golden Globe winner for the Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for TV in 1989. Armand Assante was also very good, flamboyant and exquisite on his performance of the American Stage actor Richard Mansfield, one of the prime suspects of the Ripper case, even if ultimately, his character went nowhere. Lewis Collins was tough and assertive and offered good support as Sergeant George Godley, the "Dr.Watson" for Caine's "Sherlock Holmes".
The invocation of the Victorian Era was not exceptional (in the exterior shots), but was competent as so as the costume design, art direction & set decoration (in the interior shots) and the cinematography by Alan Hume, that in the very same year lit up & shot another similar movie, also with Michael Caine, the mystery / comedy called "Without a Clue".
In short, "Jack the Ripper" have its moments, when is less derivative and follows closely the real life case as it wants to achieve as the definitive dramatization on the notorious serial-killer (we all know that the Jack the Ripper case remains unsolved, so the end of every screen adaptation is always based on supposed theories); it got a high budget for a television production; a good cast of thespians and it's a nicely watch for fans of the genre, but it isn't, as a whole, the best engaging screen adaptation about the serial-killer from Whitechapel like its fame indicates, for that matter, "A Study in Terror" ('65) or "Murder by Decree" ('79), even if both took more liberties in terms of their plot, are far better choices.
Well, the conspiracy theory around the Jack the Ripper's identity and motivations presented here was, in fact, territory covered before on the cinema by the superior "Murder by Decree" ('79) and on the literary world by the book "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" written by Stephen Knight & first published in 1976, minus the more interesting parts of it, which was the British Royal family & the Freemasonry involvement to cover up a secret marriage between the second-in-line to the throne, Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale and grandson of Queen Victoria and Annie Crook, a catholic working class girl, which begot a daughter that could be a future threat to the throne of Britain.
Kudos to the screenwriters David Wickes and Derek Marlowe for trying to avoid repeating the same plot devices & resolutions, offering instead the same guilty, but way different motivation for committing the murders, the problem is that the story became less exciting, less thrilling and not that satisfactory, especially in the final act when Jack the Ripper is finally, unmasked and caught.
This production runs past 3 hours long and is filled with unnecessary scenes and characters, like Jane Seymour who adds nothing to the plot or the irritating reporter, and very little screen time was given to the really important ones, like the ill-fated prostitutes, which some of them (with the exception of Susan George as Catherine Eddowes and Lysette Anthony as Mary Kelly) appears almost like extended extras. There's also too many "red herrings" and loose ends to their contributions to the plot. The pace is also too slow with the editing reminding more of a "soap-opera", it lacks momentum and suspense, needed a more gloomy tone to create the suited atmosphere for telling this story.
Michael Caine was paid the large sum of 1 million to appearing in the central role of Frederick Abberline of Scotland Yard, the real life Chief Inspector assigned to investigate the Jack the Ripper case, so the producers took care that the camera was always on him, neglecting the needed focus on the crimes and the relevance that some of the supporting characters have on the overall plot.
In terms of performances, Caine without doubts, gave it all to the character (even if he has a tendency to go 'over-the-top' in some scenes) and he was, deservedly, the Golden Globe winner for the Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for TV in 1989. Armand Assante was also very good, flamboyant and exquisite on his performance of the American Stage actor Richard Mansfield, one of the prime suspects of the Ripper case, even if ultimately, his character went nowhere. Lewis Collins was tough and assertive and offered good support as Sergeant George Godley, the "Dr.Watson" for Caine's "Sherlock Holmes".
The invocation of the Victorian Era was not exceptional (in the exterior shots), but was competent as so as the costume design, art direction & set decoration (in the interior shots) and the cinematography by Alan Hume, that in the very same year lit up & shot another similar movie, also with Michael Caine, the mystery / comedy called "Without a Clue".
In short, "Jack the Ripper" have its moments, when is less derivative and follows closely the real life case as it wants to achieve as the definitive dramatization on the notorious serial-killer (we all know that the Jack the Ripper case remains unsolved, so the end of every screen adaptation is always based on supposed theories); it got a high budget for a television production; a good cast of thespians and it's a nicely watch for fans of the genre, but it isn't, as a whole, the best engaging screen adaptation about the serial-killer from Whitechapel like its fame indicates, for that matter, "A Study in Terror" ('65) or "Murder by Decree" ('79), even if both took more liberties in terms of their plot, are far better choices.