A Volta de Jack, o Estripador

"Jack's Back" (1988) is a serial killer movie that is thoroughly '80s: the soundtrack, the lighting, the acting--everything. Watching this movie is like going back many years in a time machine. In other words, it's pretty fun. It's also surprisingly restrained. For example, in a scene where the lead goes into a topless bar to buy a gun, there is no obligatory shot of topless girls gyrating around steel poles; he just walks into the bar owner's office. Who knows, maybe the small budget held them back, but it was actually enjoyable to watch a movie that didn't indulge in every predictable grotesquerie.

The plot is simple: It's the hundred-year anniversary of Jack the Ripper's crime spree, and someone is killing prostitutes in exactly the same manner, on exactly the same dates. Kinda fun.

Because DTV (Direct-To-Video) thrillers have a reputation for being the "bastard stepchildren" of larger budgeted cable, TV and big screen fare, some great little movies that hold dynamite performances have a tendency to become underrated and overlooked. This was definitely one of them.

James Spader gives a performance every bit as remarkable as that of Jeremy Irons in DEAD RINGERS, playing twins who become embroiled in a murder mystery involving a serial killer, who is copycatting the infamous Jack the Ripper's horrendous legacy of bloody terror, down to the most minute details.

B-movie pro Herrington knows how to keep the action, cinematography and editing going at maximum warp, so that the glaring inconsistencies and gaping plot holes are apparent only on repeated viewings. But if you can get past that, you will be rewarded by Spader's performance, (which gives one all the more reason to wonder why this man is not a major star right now), as well as some fine turns by Cynthia Gibb (TV's FAME), Jim Haynie, TWIN PEAKS' Chris Mulkey (another criminally overlooked actor), and a wickedly enjoyable portrayal by Rod Loomis, as a local doctor who knows a lot more about the murders than he lets on.

A nice little surprise that's worth seeking out on the shelves of your local video palace when all the "good" stuff is gone for the weekend.

I am at a loss to explain why James Spader is not a major star. He got a good start with 80s teen flicks and didn't burn out too fast. This movie shows off his acting as well as his on-screen charisma. His everyman is better than Harrison Ford's, usually, because you know there's some intelligence and humanity behind the intensity.

There's some nice moments in the movie, and it has a quirky feel that makes it endearing despite the violent content. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite hold together and the quirkiness doesn't stop it from been a familiar story. Incidentally, despite the direct description of its plot, it's a terrible title.

A serial killer in Los Angeles celebrates Jack the Ripper's 100th anniversary by committing similar murders.

My first thought was how strange this film was for starting when there was only one murder left. It seems like it would make more sense to start at the first murder and allow the characters to solve the mystery of the pattern. Instead, they know from the opening scene that the killer is following the pattern of Jack the Ripper. This takes out much of the mystery element...

The cast here is pretty great, with both James Spader and Robert Picardo, both (I think) before becoming bigger names. Spader always had that boy next door charm, and Picardo is interesting and plays his role as a psychiatrist well, coming off as very suspicious at all the right moments.

The New York Times said "is so dull it leaves you plenty of time to marvel at how a plot can be this rickety, how a production can look this shabby, and how the first-time writer and director Rowdy Herrington could borrow a story with so relentless a grip on our imaginations and in no time at all declaw it." This seems terribly harsh. While not the greatest movie, it is still much better than many films out there, and had a premise that was enough to carry it.

I watched this film on Netflix, and I am told this version is different from the one on VHS or that was shown in theaters. I would be curious to know the differences, as I am told they are big enough to completely change the plot of the film... I liked the version I saw, but maybe the other is even better?

This was recommended on my Amazon prime. It looked like a hokey, made for TV movie. I decided to throw it on and it definitely was a hokey, made for TV movie but I really enjoyed it. Most roles I've seen Spader play have been arrogant and not all that likeable. I really enjoyed seeing him play the good guy(s) and for whatever reason, found him to be really attractive in this movie. The copy cat murders don't really have much to do with the movie, it mostly focuses on Spaders character. I enjoyed it and would watch it again.