Hands of the Ripper

This week I was in the mood for some Hammer Horror so I watched;

Hands of the Ripper (1971).

MILD SPOILERS AHEAD.

Doctor Pritchard (Eric Porter) and his son Michael (Keith Bell) attend a séance, possibly to expose the medium as a fraud. Shortly after they leave, the medium is murdered, and the police suspects one of the guests, MP Dysart (Derek Godfrey). The doctor, who is a disciple of Freud, suspects that the culprit is the young ward of the medium, sweet but mentally ill girl, Anna (Angharad Rees). It turns out that Anna is the daughter of none other than Jack the Ripper, and due to past trauma, she becomes possessed by him when certain things triggers her. The doctor is unwilling to give up on her as well as his own theories, but things quickly spiral out of control.

The reason I placed the spoiler warning is Anna's heritage, but pretty much every blurb I saw leads with that fact so I don't feel too bad.

Hands of the Ripper is directed by Peter Sasdy who also directed The Stone Tape, Countess Dracula and Taste the Blood of Dracula for Hammer, two of which are some of my favorite Hammer movies. This gave me hope for something really good, but I was a bit disappointed.

Two things keep this movie afloat; the actors and the cinematography, everything else is good enough but nothing special. Prop wise this is typical Victorian studio work, fine but nothing out of the ordinary. The gore, what little there is, is quite tame. For having Ripper in the title and being a Hammer movie, I was expecting a lot more but it is what it is.

Speaking of Victorian, they refer to “Our Queen Victoria” but they also mention that “The Ripper was fifteen years ago”. That places the movie in 1903, which makes it the Edwardian era, not the Victorian since Queen Victoria died in 1901. Not a deal breaker by any means, but a bit sloppy to be sure.

The actors do a good job, particularly Eric Porter and Angharad Rees. Even though Anna is pretty catatonic for a good part of the movie, they have good chemistry and pull you into the story. No one stands out as subpar, which is a plus.

The shot composition ranges from good to really good, particularly the end. Many horror movies are good but ends up with disappointing endings. Hands of the Ripper is the opposite. Tame start, alright middle and an excellent ending. There are even some scenes that makes you sit up and take notice.

All this said, do I recommend this movie? Fans of Hammer, Amicus and that style of movie making should enjoy Hands of the Ripper, but general horror fans will probably be a bit bored. If you set your expectations to the right level, this is a good movie. Not one of Hammers stand out productions no, but good enough to put 95 minutes on.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have great week!