Jack's Back

This item might be trapped in its 80s decor (fashion, music), but this stylishly compelling and crisp psychological thriller holds it cards close and leads the way with an appealingly subtle and sincere James Spader performance. This guy has charisma! And he strongly pulls off the whole dual part of playing twins. The premise is one of those, the less you know, the better off you are. When you think you have it figured out, you'll find yourself at square one again. It's a simple, but cleverly penned whodunit murder mystery story. Its odd and manipulative multi-layered structure offers unpredictable turns, hidden clues, suspicious red herrings, but in the long run leaves some spotty developments and a real lack of motivation. It might annoy and could've used some tweaking, but the well-paced story (that takes time to give our protagonist some depth) and sense of urgency just grips you that you just go with it. Director / writer Rowdy Herrington's directorial debut shows assurance in his abilities. The thrills are routine, but confidently done with razor-sharp timing and jarring force. They're menacing, brooding, bloody and a little disturbing. He really does hold you at bay with powerful visuals and anxious suspense. The moody photography and lighting composition drills in well with the stirringly blues music score. This blends well in with eerily glum and sullen atmospheric tinge coming from the Los Angles' setting. The performances are well-suited. Spader is the film's main drive, but Cynthia Gibb is capably good and Robert Picardo turns in a sound performance. Its also stars Jim Haynie, Chris Mulkey, Rod Loomis, John Wesley and Rex Ryon in amusingly fine support.

A wonderfully quirky and darkly projected thriller that's better than your average output.

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.

I caught this on TV late at night. Thought it would just be some

typical 80's slasher movie, but I was pleasantly surprised to see

what a genuinely well-made thriller this was. It's a basic potboiler

story, but thoughtfully executed and James Spader is excellent in a

dual role as twin brothers. It's got a little bit of everything --

reincarnating the Jack the Ripper myth, twin brothers who are (of

course) total opposites, a bit of the paranormal, a great whodunit

mystery, and some genuinely creepy scenes. Spader really makes

this watchable -- the story's solid enough, but his performance is

just so much fun to watch. He plays one twin, who is the affable,

friendly doctor who works in a local free clinic, and then his

anti-hero bad-boy twin brother who works a minimum-wage job,

has shady connections, but ultimately shares his brother's sense

of justice and good heart. And Spader's performance isn't the

typical uber-yuppie, not a whiny preppy wimp, and not a total

psychopath. He's just playing an average guy trying to do the right

thing, save the girl, and clear his brother's name by finding the real

murderer. It's good stuff! For James Spader fans, I think it's a great

chance to see him do yet another unique job of character

interpretation.

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.