User Reviews

This film is a slickly produced effort, although the claims that it may represent the definitive answer to the mystery are extremely tenuous. The plot is watered-down version of the masonic conspiracy theory, in which William Gull, the queen's doctor, committed the murders to silence a group of east end prostitutes attempting to blackmail the government. The more simple premise of the film is that Gull was simply a deranged psychopath. Yet this already three hour production benefits from this by turning it into a classic whodunit. The suspects it puts forward generally weren't regarded as such at the time, but this matters little thanks to the general quality of the production. There are a numbers of "gaffs" in the film regarding historical accuracy:

Annie Chapman is seen photographed at the murder site in Hanbury street. This never happened.

Prince Albert Victor is mentioned as Duke of Clarence and Avondale. He never assumed these titles until 1891.

There is a bloodhound visible at the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. While there were rumours dogs were to be used, ultimately they weren't.

Emma Prentice, Inspector Abberline's love interest declares a picture she is drawing is "for strand magazine". Strand magazine wasn't first published until 1892, four years after the film is set.

This made for television movie tells you everything you ever wanted to know about the famous, real-life case of Jack the Ripper, the murderer who slaughtered prostitutes in Victorian London and neatly removed their internal organs. The film concentrates on a detective's investigation into the murders and therefore cannot be missed by any self-respecting mystery fan, as it's an above average and taut thriller with lots of star performances and a nicely portrayed Victorian London, complete with pea-soup fog, cobbled streets, and lurking figures in black cloaks.

The cast is populated by British actors and actresses, even though the film is an American production. Just about everybody you've ever seen in British television and film turns, there are just too many names to list: Ray McAnally, Michael Gothard, Susan George, Harry Andrews...the list goes on. It's Michael Caine, though, who steals the spotlight with his portrayal of a dogged detective (also an alcoholic, way before Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger picked up the bottle in their films). Some people have called his performance hammy, well maybe it is, but it's entertaining anyway. I mean, who wants to watch subdued actors who don't give it all they've got? Unfortunately Jane Seymour turns up as the obligatory love interest, and the less said about her performance, the better. On the other hand, Ken Bones is a wonderfully neurotic clairvoyant, and Armand Assante does a wonderful transformation from Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde before our very eyes with the aid of some prosthetics (and he isn't afraid to be ridiculed when it turns out he's bald). Assante's performance is nicely slimy.

I would go so far to say that this could be a definitive portrayal of the Ripper murders. It's not perfect by any means, for a start there are too many red herrings and people get blamed for the murders just for the sheer sake of it. Also, the whole city of London is far too clean and respectable, nobody is smoking or taking drugs, difficult to believe but merely a product of the political correctness of our time (but altering an audience's perspective of the Victorian era just to comply with modern day issues? It's a fact that people smoked, there's no point trying to deny it and this omission just makes the producers look ridiculous).

On the plus side there is oodles of suspense, plenty of atmosphere, and good and assured performances from a distinguished cast. The film may run for slightly too long (it goes on for about three and a half hours) but I can say that I didn't get bored while watching any of it, as Caine had me riveted throughout. The actual gore content is kept low, but a brief flash of a room where a prostitute has been dismembered and parts of her body are draped everywhere is very unsettling.

It is very rarely that I rate something 10/10. However, after watching the DVD for the zillionith time today I can't describe how much I enjoy this production. Putting aside who you think Jack the Ripper was, 'Jack The Ripper' is lavish, colourful and lively, and easily beats some of the cinema's Jack The Ripper Films.

Michael Caine is great as lead Detective, Abberline. Being from London himself he slipped easily into the role of the main Detetctive. I also like that it's hinted that he is a alcoholic. It's good to see in some scenes that he beats the temptation to dive into the bottle, even when the case gets really rough. Lewis Collins, as his sidekick, Godley was marvellous also and I don't know if the men got on in real life, but they certainly gelled together extremely well on the screen and their characters were close too. Lysette Anthony was a gem as Mary Kelly, and Susan George played Kathy Eddows with consideration and sensitivity.

The Whitechapel set is brilliant and I love how they don't go OTT on the famous misty appearance as on none of the nights of the real murders was London covered in fog. It's very convincing and in fact, is superior to the set used for 'From Hell'. The costumes were accurate a joy to watch.

I liked how the murders were treated with sensitivity, and the murder scenes were not over the top in gore.

One aspect of the film that did not work well and which slowed the production down was the affair between Abberline and Emma Prentice (Jane Seymour) the official artists for the newspaper that was in the film, 'The Star'. I found the scenes not always unnecessary but it slowed the film down to a plod and it's hard to believe that a woman from the upper class such as Emma would even mix with someone like Abberline, let alone bed him which she did in the film, although thankfully it was only shown briefly.

The whole drama was full of suspense and the ending, where a fake murder was set up was high in tension and on first viewing was excellent. You get a choice of four or five men who, just before this fake murder is due to happen, all leave their places of work dressed in dark clothes carrying parcels which could be the famous Gladstone bag that the Ripper supposedly kept his knives in. Each man is a potential Ripper, but when you see who the Ripper is, it's cleverly filmed so that you realise it was none of the men put forward as suspects.

I would highly recommend this drama. It's four hours long or thereabouts but is very enjoyable. You can get two versions in the UK on DVD. A normal straight forward version, and one with extra's on. I'd go for the latter as it has a great lot of footage showing the production before Micheal Caine was hired when Barry Foster was Abberline.

Over all a good, historical piece of drama. In my mind it far outweighs 'From Hell' which follows the same story line. If I had the choice of the two, (dispite Johnny Depp being in 'From Hell'), I'd choose Jack the Ripper every time.

For all its faults, this is likely to remain the definitive "straight" account on the screen of the notorious Jack the Ripper murders. It's a handsome production (the era has been reconstructed with loving care, the production design is majestic), but a little flat; while it avoids overt sensationalism, it's also a bit short on atmosphere and (for a 190-minute running time) suspense. It's structured like a (speculative) whodunit, and it will keep you guessing right to the end. Michael Caine heads a fine, mostly British cast (I even saw Hugh - Hastings - Fraser in there!). **1/2 out of 4.

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.