Recensioni degli utenti

THE RIPPER (VIDEO 1985) Not bad... For a high school student film 2.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read:

BASIC PLOT: Jack the Ripper's ring is found in an antique shop, and bought by Richard Harwell (Tom Schreier) a college professor. A string of ripper-like killings begin, and Steve (Wade Tower), one of Richard's students begins to suspect his teacher is the new ripper.

WHAT WORKS: *CINEMATOGRAPHY IS OK For the most part, I didn't have a lot of problems with the blocking, setups, framing etc. It's decent for a student film, which is what it seems to be.

*ORIGINAL SCRIPT OR TREATMENT (NOT EXECUTED SCRIPT) ISN'T BAD I can see the writer's intent, and it wasn't bad. What they did to his vision is the real bloodbath.

*SEVERAL PLOT DEVICES AND CHARACTERS AREN'T USED CORRECTLY Fred (Randall White) for instance, the flock of seagulls nerd who knows about "Star Trek", and brings his dog to class with him, is a great character. Push him into knowing about the occult, make him team up with Steve & Carol, and there's a workable plot device about how they all discover what the ring is doing to Richard. It's a more enjoyable path as well, instead of haphazardly jumping from scene to scene, with no explanation as to how we got here.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *THE ENGLISH ACCENTS ARE LAUGHABLE The English accents in the opening scene are so bad they are laughable.

*NO BREASTS In this type of movie, if you're going to include a five minute make out scene, there needs to be breasts.

*WHY DID THE MOTORCYCLE EXPLODE? There's a scene where a motorcycle rider lays down his bike, and then in the distance, we see an explosion. WTH?

*ACTING IS WOODEN Acting is beyond flat. It reminds me of a high school student film, where there's no budget, no rehearsals, and made by people who are still learning.

*WHY IS JACK THE RIPPER DRESSED LIKE A VAMPIRE? It doesn't make sense.

*NO SUSPENSE, NO BUILDUP TO VIOLENCE This is the biggest problem, because it robs the viewer of the fear factor. It instead leaves the ultra violence feeling cartoony, and lackluster. It doesn't help that they continually mention films that are full of suspense and terror.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I cannot recommend this to anyone but aspiring screenwriters, and as a cautionary tale of what NOT to let happen to your work.

(rw2499279)

CLOSING NOTES: *THIS IS A STRAIGHT TO VIDEO MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. Straight to video movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

Granted, while I had never heard about the 1985 slasher horror movie "The Ripper", from writer Bill Groves and director Christopher Lewis, I still opted to watch it as I had the opportunity here in 2025. I didn't know what I was in for, so I harbored no expectations to the movie. So I suppose the writer and director had every opportunity to entertain me.

The script in the movie was okay. I mean, it was an adequate enough slasher story, though you're not in for anything extraordinary or particularly memorable.

Of the entire cast ensemble, I was only familiar with actor Tom Savini. The acting performances in the movie were actually fair enough.

The effects in the movie were okay, and I assume that Tom Savini himself was working on the special effects aside from just only acting in the movie.

"The Ripper" is suitable for a single viewing, but that is about it. There is no replay value to be found in the movie.

My rating of the 1985 slasher horror movie "The Ripper" lands on a four out of ten stars.

Finally got around to picking up a copy of this on DVD. Maybe my thoughts turned to it in part because Halloween is approaching.

I was surprised to discover a commentary track on the disc, especially the fact that on it, Christopher Lewis repeatedly talks about the quality of the script. I couldn't help but respond out loud "Then why did you treat it like one of the Ripper's victims?" In fairness, some of the discussion regarding budgetary limitations (for instance, in the area of lighting) explains why certain elements of my original drafts were eliminated, but it's still a frustrating watch for me to see the way certain things were thrown into the final shooting script that either had no story justification, changed the nature of one or more characters, incorporated lines that only made sense in connection with eliminated scenes from prior drafts, or just generally turned the premise of the thriller I'd written inside-out.

Let me just say this. Dance scene, among other things, not mine. In script, his fiancée was a theatre professor, and Harwell walks in during the first day's class during which she is teaching her improv class using an exercise known as "The Asylum," wherein the students spend the hour adopting some sort of fake psychosis. Hence, the Nurse Ratchet line. Harwell's dream sequence was more complex and of greater significance, and there were no actual murders occurring prior to Harwell putting on the ring.

Also, business and dialogue involving brass bed, not mine. I simply had her convincing him to join her in browsing an antique store near where they were having lunch.

The driving force of my original story was that the protagonist became increasingly aware that he had some connection to the series of murders, but in ways that were only evident to him, so there was a lot of internal torment going on. At the urging of Lewis, a later draft did introduce the notion that Steve was picking up on things. And Steve, incidentally, was essentially a younger version of Harwell, not the annoying geek in the final version.

There are too many differences between my climax/ending and what was in the final version to go into here. I'll just mention one. In my original, Jack had no dialogue. I wanted him to be akin to an evil spirit, with his silence actually reinforcing the fear, like the shark in "Jaws" or the vampire in the silent "Nosferatu" (yeah, I know he had title cards, but it's not the same as actually speaking like in the Herzog remake). Lewis felt that if Savini was gracious enough to accept the role, he should have some dialogue, so I tried to craft something that sounded right, while dropping vague hints at his motivation. Unfortunately, the most telling line in terms of motivation got mangled and having no coherent meaning. More unfortunately, I wasn't invited to be an ongoing part of the process, so I didn't realize the changes that had been made until I managed to invite myself onto the set for the one night of shooting with Savini.

Contrary to Lewis' mis-remembered comment as to whose idea it was to recruit Savini, it was mine. Having been impressed by his performance in George Romero's "Knightriders," I thought that if we was that good an actor, he'd probably like to do more of it, but likely wasn't offered many opportunities due to being in demand for his makeup talents. I've since apologized to him.

This is a movie based on the legend of Jack the Ripper, when a college professor purchases a ring that replicates the ring Jack the Ripper wore he begins to act strange. The movie is poorly filmed and lacks artistic input. The music is boring and the characters are unbelievable at some points. The movie becomes repetitive and there is a small twist thrown in at the end. Wow, this is a hard movie to finish watching, but if you begin to connect with the college professor's infatuation with Jack the Ripper you probably will be able to sit through the whole movie.

The only credit that this movie will ever earn from me is with the fact that it is the worst movie that I have ever seen in my life. It is an ABOMINATION! Before I saw this movie, I was afraid of Jack the Ripper-I was younger; This movie did not succeed in what I thought it would-SCARE ME! It was the WORST!-I can't say that enough! "The Ripper" sounds scary, but it's not. This movie looked like it was filmed on someone's home video equipment. The acting and plot were horrible, I MEAN HORRIBLE. I fell asleep on it during the first twenty minutes, and then, I turned it off before I saw the end. I had no interest in finishing this movie. It was inconsistent, vile, and just dumb! It is a waste of money, and time. This movie, along with "Troll:2" make it into the most horrifically awful movies ever made hall of fame, in my book. I don't think anyone can disagree.

Although the movie is poorly written and very slow it gains some attention for the involvement of Tom Savini as well as some exceptionally done gore and make-up effects. I recently sat down and screened my 'Ripper Blood Pack' VCI DVD release alongside my 'Unrated' Congress Video VHS and am happy to report that both cuts of the movie run the exact same length. There is only one slight difference between the prints and it occurs during the final showdown, when the killer is finally revealed. In the original VHS release, the killer uses their right hand in the final scene, contradicting historical accuracy they literally discuss in the film; in the DVD release they mirror flipped the entire final scene so that the killer is using their left hand instead. It's quite an interesting little 80s oddity, if you're into slasher films you'll find something to like here.

Tom Savini as Jack the Ripper! Right on!! I really enjoy this movie, but it suffers drastically from being shot on video. Too bad, a bit of a larger budget, a few re-writes, and it could have been released theatrically. This movie has some of the goriest scenes I have ever seen, and I like gory films. The dialouge is a bit amaturish, and it does have the air of a student film, but with Mr. Savini's special effects, they more than compensate. So to cut it to the quick: If ya like Savini, watch.

THE RIPPER (1985) Director Christopher Lewis. Wade Tower, Mona Van Pernis, Tom Savini.

College professor is posessed by the evil within Jack the Ripper's Ring that he purchases at a pawn shop. Hence, a brutal spree of Jack the Ripper style murders spread all over town whenever he has a dream!

Well written, and well told story, delivers the goods as far as gore goes. But the acting is way too cheeseball, making it look like an infomercial, or better yet, a public access version of Jack the Ripper. It was nice to have Tom save the day during the last ten minutes.

Filmed in Tulsa Oklahoma, shot on Super VHS, and released direct to video. ** (out of 4*'s)

Tom Savini plays an immortal Jack the Ripper who starts stalking and butchering young women in Oklahoma.The main suspect is Professor Richard Harwell,who is teaching his students about Famous Crimes on Film and Whitechapel Murders to be precise.There is also the ring which once belonged to Jack the Ripper himself."The Ripper" by Christopher Lewis is an utter tripe.Tom Savini does not appear on screen until the final five minutes.Still the killings are gory and sadistic as they include juicy throat slashings and graphic disembowellings.The cast is pretty awful and there is no suspense.Still I will give "The Ripper" 6 out of 10 because of its sadistic streak.

OK, I like some of Tom Savini's work, but this was by far, one of his worst. First of all, you can tell that this was a shot-on-video film because of the cheesy camerawork. And second, the gory special effects almost made my throw up. Well, OK, I was 10 at the time but I was seeing with my parents and I was a huge horror fan at the time. But this was one of the worst!!! Avoid it all costs!!!!

My review was written in February 1986 after watching the program on United Home Video cassette.

"The Ripper" is an ambitious but off-putting videotaped horror feature from the makers of last year's "Blood Cult" home video entry. Excessive gore and a very slow-paced storyline should turn off prospective fans.

Familiar gimmick has a n outbreak of local slasher murders (pic was filmed in Tulsa) coinciding with a new college course on crimes depicted in feature films, with particular focus on the Whitechapel murders in 1888. Student Steve (Wade Towers) suspects that Prof. Harwell (Tom Schreier) is the new murderer, slitting women's throats from ear to ear and then disemboweling them (shown in closeups for the same type of gore introduced on-screen over two decades ago in H. G. Lewis' "Blood Feast").

Pic dawdles frequently en route to its supernatural climax. Silliest gimmick has Harwell's teacher/girlfriend Carol (Mon VanPernis) leading an aerobics class, which momentarily gives the tape a combo of all the made-for home video genres currently selling well: horror, exercise and music video. Gore is the feature's goal, and the murders are depicted with repetitious cutting of latex throats and torsos, blood spurting and fake entrails pulled out.

Touted star Tom Savini (makeup specialist who wears his acting hat here only) doesn't show up until the finale, and aided by eerie contact lenses, does a nice job as the Ripper, bug brevity of his appearance will disappoint his fans. Technical quality of the video technique is variable, with some blurriness in long shots and unfortunate lens flares in night shots.

Ripper, The (1985)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

This here was one of the first movies to be produced in order to go straight to video with the director's Blood Cult being considered the very first. The film tells the story of a professor (Tom Schreier) who buys the ring of Jack the Ripper and soon afterwards women start turning up with their throats slashed and guts ripped out. This was a very popular and rather infamous rental back in the day but it's pretty much been forgotten since then. I hadn't seen the film in nearly twenty-years and my memories of it were pretty bad but this viewing really didn't come off as bad as I thought it would. There's no question that the film is bad but I was rather shocked to see how well it actually is considering there really wasn't anything for the director to work off of. In other words, I've seen countless direct to VHS (or now DVD) titles that were cheap and poor but it's rather neat seeing such an early example and notice that it's better than a lot of what followed. The biggest problem is that the film runs 104-minutes, which is at least twenty-minutes too long. The actual story is an interesting one and one that could work but not at the long running time. Another problem is that the film spends way too much time with one of the professor's students and his girlfriend. Both of the actors are very bad so why so much time was spent with them is beyond me. Gore master Tom Savini gets top billing but he only appears in one scene playing the spirit of Jack the Ripper.

The last time I saw such a cheesy movie with laughable acting and script it was rated XXX ! the parts that kept my attention were so bad I felt my mind freezing over. *** WARNING *** this movie contains a bad 80's group dancing sequence that is more sickening than the stabbings and gut ripping. AVOID -2/10

Awful film that looks like it was filmed in a college's mass media department. Extremely gory, but almost laughable plot about a professor who is possessed by the spirit of Jack the Ripper. Very cheap. Very Bad.

A college professor stumbles across a ring that belongs to Jack the Ripper and goes on a murderous rampage. This gory garbage plays like a cheap early 80s music video. How did special effects genius Tom Savini end up in this loser? Avoid this crap at all costs. My evaluation: (no stars).