Jack's Back

"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.

It's been a long time since I've seen this but I enjoyed the movie and thought that James Spader gave a great performance. My best friend had it taped off TV and was mentioning the movie one day and hunted it out for us to watch after I had said that I had never seen it or even heard of it, which was odd because I was a fan of James Spader.

The movie has a lot of twists and turns and the excitement builds up and you really get engrossed in the film. James and Cynthia had great chemistry and I agree with others that their romance was not done in a typical, over-done fashion.

The title of the movie is bad and makes you think automatically that it will just be some stupid B movie but it's actually one of the best thrillers I've seen and definitely the best thriller out of the "B" section. I think if the film had more publicity and a better cover/title more people would know of it and want to rent it.

I would recommend it to anyone that likes a good thriller, especially ones that they've never heard of and want to be surprised.

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?

While all of my reviews usually include a brief rehashing of the story, I'll try to say as little as possible, so people can experience the twists fresh. The main idea is that in 1988 L. A., on the 100th anniversary of the Jack the Ripper slayings, a current serial killer is replicating those murders down to the last detail. James Spader plays John Wesford, a do-gooder medical student employed at a clinic, and John ends up suspected of the crimes. So not only must the psychopath be identified, but Johns' name must be cleared...by an unexpected source.

"Jack's Back" creator Rowdy Herrington had been working in the business approximately a dozen years, doing various odd jobs behind the camera, before making this writing & directing debut. He realized that the anniversary of the Jack the Ripper crimes was imminent, and tied in that element to a story he'd already conceived. While his movie isn't anything special, it *is* solidly entertaining. It might not be gory enough for some people, but it has some good atmosphere (the sets are deliberately rendered to be somewhat hazy), and Herringtons' story twists help to keep things somewhat interesting.

The main attraction is in seeing Spader subtly delineate two different characters. Herrington has also assembled a strong supporting cast here: pretty Cynthia Gibb as an intelligent leading lady, Jim Haynie, Chris Mulkey (source of some amusing comedy relief), and John Wesley as assorted detectives working the case, Rod Loomis as the ill-tempered head doctor at the clinic, Rex Ryon as Johns' co-worker, and the always great Robert Picardo as a psychiatrist lending the cops his expertise.

Nicely filmed at a variety of L. A. locations.

Seven out of 10.

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.