User Reviews

The title of this early 1970s horror film from the fondly-remembered Hammer studio might lead one to believe this is a film primarily about the exploits of real-life 19th Century serial killer Jack The Ripper. Indeed, the film opens with the Ripper fleeing the scene of his latest murder. Whilst a dollop of accuracy is supplied in the use of the name Berner Street (one of the actual murder sites), but all attempts at adhering to fact would appear to end there, for the Ripper is yet again portrayed in the stereotypical, but ludicrous, image of top hat and flowing cape, with his modus operandi taking the form of savage, frenzied stabbing rather than the more calculated throat-cutting and mutilation that were the hallmarks of the actual murders.

This Jack arrives home and suddenly decides it would be a good idea to murder his wife too, watched by his infant daughter. So ends the set-up, and after the credits the story moves forward 15 years or so.

We never find out what happened to Jack, but his daughter, Anna, has now grown up and is the ward of the uncaring Mrs Golding who uses Anna not only to assist with the fake séances she holds to gain money from the gullible, but also to force Anna into prostitution.

However, Anna has a habit of falling into a trance, whereupon she savagely murders the nearest person. It is all a little vague as to whether she is possessed by her late father's spirit or whether this has just come about because of the trauma of witnessing her mother's brutal murder.

Mrs Golding falls prey to this murderous behaviour, at which point Dr John Pritchard takes custody of Anna. He has heard from the only witness to Mrs Golding's murder, Dysart, how Anna kills and is keen to study the minds of murderers so that he can identify precisely what makes them kill and, perhaps, effect a cure. This obsession of his leads him to protect Anna from the police after she kills one of his maids, a prostitute, and a medium.

Whilst there are some interesting concepts, the whole films lurches from one gory killing to another without much sense of direction or progression. Anna, we are expected to believe, kills somebody every time she is kissed. If, indeed, this is the case, it seems very far fetched that her murders have never attracted attention before.

Dr Pritchard seems a very unsympathetic character, showing absolutely no remorse when one of his servants is killed or taking any steps to safeguard his other staff, friends, family or anybody else. We don't see very much of his attempting to find the reason for Anna's homicidal mania, he actually finds out more about her from a royal spiritualist with whom he and Anna had an appointment not of his making. When Anna kills this spiritualist he just takes her away, apparently without any worry that they will be obvious suspects for this crime! Thrown into the mix is Pritchard's son and his fiancé Laura, who is blind. Laura's blindness serves very little purpose in the plot, though it would appear that most of the other characters suffer a degree of blindness too: the police fail to take notice of the sudden spate of murders, nobody seems to notice when Anna is in one of her trances, Anna herself doesn't seem to question her blackouts...

Ultimately Pritchard himself falls victim to Anna's violence, having a sword plunged through him. We assume this staunches the bleeding, since there is surprisingly little sign of blood, so being a medical man he pulls the sword out again (probably the worst thing you could do). He then miraculously has the strength to get all the way to St Paul's where Laura has taken Anna for a rousing climax in the inspired backdrop of the cathedral's whispering gallery.

Too many plot threads are just forgotten about or don't go anywhere. Why was Pritchard at the fake séance at the start of the film? Why does police interest cease after the first murder rather than increasing with each successive one? Why does Pritchard wisely start using restraints on Anna, then stop again? Ultimately this film might have been more tense if there was a feeling that the net was closing in around Pritchard, and that both he and Anna were wrestling with their own consciences but there is none of this, and the ending subsequently feels rather inconsequential. On the plus side the period setting looks very good (if a little clichéd at times - why must all vigilante mobs carry flaming torches?) and there are some reliable actors at work here, not least Eric Porter in the main role of Pritchard. It's not a poor film, but the plot is more lightweight than it should have been given the premise, and relies on the shock-factor of its killings to maintain interest.

Hammer did some very good monster films in the 1950's and 60's, but by the 1970's, they were running out of gas and rehashing some tired old idea.

The plot is that Jack the Ripper's daughter watched her father brutally murder her mother, and is set into murderous rampages whenever she sees shiny things and is kissed on the cheek.

I kid you not, this is the plot. She is taken in by a Kindly Doctor with no sense, and she proceeds to murder a few people.

Again, all the style of a Hammer film, no real substance to speak of. It's "Hammer Lite". "Taste Grate, Less Killing".

The sceptic-who-is-proved-wrong is a familiar figure in horror films. As soon as we hear the words "I don't believe in ghosts/witches/vampires/whatever" we know that retribution is lurking just around the corner. In some films this retribution will take no more serious form than the humiliation of being forced to eat one's words, but in others the forces of the supernatural will take bloody revenge on those who wrong them by doubting their existence.

"Hands of the Ripper" brings a new twist to this theme. Dr. John Pritchard is an eminent psychiatrist in Edwardian London who brings one of his patients, a young woman named Anna, into his home. This might seem a risky thing to do, as Pritchard is well aware (although the police are not) that Anna is not only mentally unstable but also a murderess. Pritchard, however, is an enthusiastic Freudian who believes that the new science of psychoanalysis will enable him not only to find out the cause of her murderous impulses but also to cure them.

Pritchard's theory is that Anna is suffering from a psychiatric illness caused by the subconscious memory of some childhood trauma. Given what the audience knows about Anna, this is in fact a pretty shrewd guess. She is the daughter of none other than Jack the Ripper. The Ripper's precise identity is never made clear, but it would appear that he is a gentleman of some wealth and social position. (Unlike some other Ripper films, this one does not try and blame the killings on the Duke of Clarence or anyone else connected with the Royal Family). As a child Anna witnessed her father killing her mother, who had guessed that her husband was the Ripper.

This being a Hammer film, however, there has to be a more complex explanation for Anna's criminality. Although Pritchard as a scientific rationalist would disdain any supernatural explanation for evil, it transpires that Anna is possessed by her father's spirit and that he is using her as a vehicle to carry out further murders from beyond the grave. Pritchard is guilty of the sin of hubris- the hubris of believing that his scientific methods can cure her- and he therefore has to accept the moral responsibility when Anna, contrary to his confident predictions, does indeed kill again.

Eric Porter was an actor I often associated with portrayals of rather stiff, middle-aged middle-class gentlemen like Soames Forsyte in the famous BBC adaptation of "The Forsyte Saga" or Karenin in "Anna Karenina", and Dr. Pritchard is such another such character, a respectable pillar of the Edwardian bourgeoisie who finds it difficult to show emotion or to comprehend that there may be matters in heaven and earth not dreamed of in his tidy, rational philosophy. Anna is played by Angharad Rees, an actress who was later to find fame in another BBC serial, "Poldark", which was responsible for a brief surge in the popularity of the baptismal names "Angharad" and "Demelza" (the name of her character) throughout Britain in the mid-seventies. To be honest, Angharad was never the most expressive of actresses, even in "Poldark", but that does not really matter in this film, as there appears to have been a deliberate intention to play Anna as wooden and emotionless in order to emphasise the fact that she is under the control of an exterior force.

"Hands of the Ripper" is at times over-the-top and melodramatic, although if it weren't it would hardly be a Hammer film. Some of the attempts at humour seem a bit forced (such as the fake séance conducted by Anna's guardian, the fraudulent medium Mrs Golding) and some of the death scenes might seem unintentionally humorous by modern standards. Overall, however, this is one of the more inventive and original entries in the Hammer canon- certainly more original than a lot of their standard vampire fare- and can make for enjoyable late-night watching. 6/10

Hands of the Ripper starts in Victorian London at Berner Street Whitechappel where the infamous serial killer Jack the Ripper has struck again, as the Rippers young child named Anna watches on she witnesses the brutal murder of her Mother by her Father after she discovers that he is the Ripper... Jump forward several years later & Anna (Angharad Rees) is now a beautiful teenage girl who has been adopted by fake spiritualist Mrs. Golding (Dora Bryan), one night after a organised séance Mrs. Golding accepts money from a minister named Dysart (Derek Godfrey) who wants to have underage sex with her. To try & calm her down Dysart gives her a necklace which gleams in the light, unfortunately this bright light brings back the memory of her Father murdering her Mother & she becomes possessed by her Father's spirit at which point she kills Mrs. Golding. Outside a respected scientist named Dr. John Pritchard (Eric Porter) hears the screams & rushes to investigate, he discovers Mrs. Goldings body & realise Anna must have been responsible but instead of turning her over to the police he takes her in in an attempt to discover the motivations behind a murderer & to try & 'cure' her. However, Anna can't stop killing as her Father continues to possess her under the right circumstances...

This English production was directed by Peter Sasdy & was presumably an attempt by Hammer studios to try something different from it's well know Dracula & Frankenstein series of films, personally I really liked it for what it was even though I know it's not that well known or thought of that highly which is a shame. The script by L.W. Davidson was based on a short printed story by Edward Spencer Shew & seems to take itself very seriously which I thought it just about got away with, the basic concept is rather far fetched & silly but I thought it worked quite well & was something a bit different even if it unfolds in a slightly predictable & linear way. Some of the character's are a bit underdeveloped & some of them are a bit dull but that's probably how people behaved in Victorian London. The film moves along at a nice pace & is never boring plus it has a nice ending which seemed very fitting. The only thing which didn't really work for me was that it didn't take much for Anna to go into here trance & be possessed & since it was so easy why had it never happened before? Oh & I personally wouldn't let a person who had just slit my maids throat in cold blood walk around my house & do whatever she wanted especially while my family was there!

Director Sasdy does a nice job, I personally love these period horror films & Hammer did 'em as well as anyone. I love the Victorian setting, the sets, the costumes which display plenty of cleavage, the mannerisms, the horse drawn carriage's, the dialogue & decor, Hands of the Ripper is dripping with atmosphere & it looks great throughout. There's some decent gore in Hands of the Ripper too, someone is impaled with a poker, people are stabbed with swords & hat pins, there's more blood than in the usual Hammer film from the period & a great scene when Anna slits someone's throat & sticks the knife in there as well for good measure.

Technically Hands of the Ripper is good, it's well made with nice production values, photography & music. The acting was very good by all involved & I actually think it helps the film that none of the Hammer regulars were used like Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing.

Hands of the Ripper is one of Hammers lesser known, lesser liked films I believe. Well, that's nonsense because it's a fine film that I enjoyed watching on various levels. In my humble opinion Hands of the Ripper is one of Hammers better films, definitely worth watching especially if you like horror or Hammer.

A doctor attempts to cure the daughter of Jack the Ripper through Freudian psychology, but can not keep her from following in father's footsteps, her mania triggered by light reflected from glass(..mostly a diamond of some sort) and a kiss to the cheek.

The film opens with the Ripper fleeing the authorities and a mob of locals into his home, killing his wife after she discovers he's the serial killer, with his daughter, Anna, experiencing the whole ordeal from her crib. Years later, Anna(Angharad Rees) is assisting a con-artist who claims to communicate with the dead, while also used as a prostitute for wealthy members of society. Her first violent outburst leads to the murder of her guardian, in front of a member of Parliament, Dysart(Derek Godfrey). Dysart exits from the building while Dr. John Pritchard(Eric Porter)follows the scream noticing him in the process, soon discovering Anna in paralyzed state, as if lost mentally to her surroundings. Pritchard doesn't implicate Dysart, using his pull to search the background history of Anna, hoping to uncover her past. Pritchard wishes to understand the state of mine of a killer..why does she kill? Anna will be his example, guinea pig, and this will come with a price. Anna will continue to kill as long as the Ripper inside holds a power in her subconscious, and Pritchard's attempts to cover up her crimes will soon cost him dearly. Pritchard will be aided by the testimony of a medium who sees the incident after "previewing the memories of that very night" from Anna's mind, her in a state of hypnosis, resulting in a disconcerting situation when Jack is triggered once again accidentally.

Startlingly violent Hammer film, again mines the mythos of Jack the Ripper, this time using the possibility of a daughter who may've experienced his murderous tendencies, effected psychologically to the point that she's an unwilling tool for his continued mayhem. You can actually hear his voice whispering for her to kill. Most of the time, a woman casts a friendly kiss to Anna's cheek, her face freezing into a blank stare, resulting in some sort of sharp blade killing them. A maid is sliced across the throat. A prostitute offers her a place to rest, resulting in her face being stabbed by hair pins(..this grisly scene has the poor woman attempting to shield her face by her hand, the pins going through it and into her eye!). Another victim is actually penetrated through the body with a sword(..in a awe-inspiring moment, the victim uses a door handle to remove it). Keith Bell is Pritchard's son, Michael. Jane Merrow is Michael's blind fiancé, Laura(..she's the potential victim in the harrowing climax set in the whispering hall). Director Peter Sasdy was one of the luckier Hammer directors allowed a bit of freedom to present his subject matter in a more elaborate, explicit way. While you don't have much in the way of nudity(..just a bit of Anna bathing in a tub), the violence even shocked me. This is the kind of film that might receive a cult following if it got a proper DVD release which would lift it from obscurity. Giving a unique way for crazy Jack to continue his work through his daughter is quite a fascinating premise. Tragic, incredibly powerful ending. Again, Hammer successfully transports us back to this period in London. Great performances from all involved. A real sleeper.

This Hammer film is not a typical Hammer film by any stretch. It is more like a Hitchcock film on a Hammer budget. The daughter of Jack The Ripper (Angharad Rees), who is plagued by nightmares and bouts of schizophrenia, is adopted briefly by a sympathetic doctor (Eric Porter) who is keen to understand what is provoking her murderous heart. Peter Sasdy, who also directed the inferior "Countess Dracula", directs with an assured, creative hand, and constructs some excellent suspense sequences. The murders are quite bloody and sudden, and the atmosphere is thick with dread and subtle eroticism. The tight script also features one immortal line: "Modesty is an affectation of the ugly." The climax, occurring in a theater, possesses a welcome grandiosity that lifts "Hands of the Ripper" above typical Hammer fare.

The ratings here is a bit high for this movie, it's watchable but not much to get excited about. The first scene of the movie is best. Daughter of Jack the Ripper sees him kill her mother, and is of course scarred for life. As adult in this movie, she gets into a trance at certain times thinking about her father and kills people. That's about it. Doctor takes her in thinking he can cure her. What is really stupid (and ruins what is already not a very intriguing movie) is the doctor, knowing she kills without thought and seeing the results of her killing (sharp things stuck in people's faces and bodies), leaves her untied and basically unattended in his office, and he happens to have a sword easily accessible (how convenient). So what happens? While distracted she take sword, stabs him, and he later dies. Tied her down or perhaps her arms? Remove all sharp objects? Not in this movie. There are not twists or other plot devices to make this more exciting than I described.

Particularly all the sour people, who continuously claim that the Hammer Studio ran out of inspiration and professionalism during the early 1970's, should view "Hands of the Rippers", as this is still a highly inventive and marvelously put together period piece. The basic premise of this film is perhaps one of the most ingenious ones ever to come out of the legendary British studios and director Peter Sasdy presents the wholesome with great emphasis on both suspense AND gory bloodshed! The French version's title (which I own) literally translates as "The Ripper's Daughter" and this sums up the synopsis much better than the official title ever could. During the opening sequence, the notorious late 19th Century London serial killer Jack the Ripper is identified by his own wife and their little girl - Anna - painfully witness how her mother too gets slaughtered by her father the monster. Years later, the shy and introvert girl is under the custody of a phony spiritual medium/female pimp but her traumatic memories come to the surface and force her hands to kill as well. Dr. John Pritchard, an early follower of Sigmund Freud, takes Anna in his house and hopes to cure her disturbed behavior by using therapy. However, since he doesn't know what exactly inflicts Anna's murderous rage, several more people (even inside Pritchard's household) are killed. "Hands of the Ripper" lacks a bit of star-power (no Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee in the cast), but the film is fast-paced and the originality of the plot results in multiple tense sequences. Moreover, the setting of London during the turn of the century is greatly captured, with people slowly recovering from the actual Jack the Ripper murder case and reverting too easily to fear & hysteria when it seems there's a new maniac on the loose in the city. The murders are sensational and really, really gruesome and they're extra shocking since nearly all victims (all but one, actually) are sympathetic characters you didn't wish this cruel fate for. This is also one of more intelligent Hammer films, as the screenplay efficiently blends together historical horror with accurate psychological theories and yet still manages to throw in some pure camp and typical Hammer-brutality! The climax, set in the St. Paul Cathedral's gallery of whispers, is breathtaking and almost hauntingly poetic. Truly one of Hammer's most underrated and sadly forgotten horror-highlights.