The Ripper

Ripper, The (1997)

** (out of 4)

Yet another version of the story of Jack the Ripper with Patrick Bergin playing Insp. Jim Henson, the man investigating the murders of various prostitutes. He strikes up a relationship with an on-again, off-again prostitute (Gabrielle Anwar) who just happened to witness one of the crimes. This film lets us know at the very start that Prince Albert Victor Edward committed the murders and the rest of the film is pretty much Bergin trying to catch who it is. We sit back as we watch the investigation and eventually the reasons why Prince Edward was never arrested for the murders. Many Ripper buffs say it was impossible for Edward to have been the real killer so they're probably not going to care too much for this film but this is a movie and not trying to be any sort of documentary. With that said, there are a few interesting things going on here but the 100-minute running time feels triple that and in the end there's just not enough stuff working here to make it worth sitting through. The biggest problem is the directing, which is hard to spot as it's clear Meyers doesn't have control of the story and she can't manage to get it on the screen in any sort of entertaining way. The film's pacing is incredibly bad because it feels like molasses as one scene just drags to the point where you feel the entire movie is about over with then you notice the section you've been watching only lasted a couple minutes. What does work are the ideas about the various forms of people and how much they hated one another. One subplot involves the rich feeling that Bergin is just wasting his time because there's nothing wrong with someone killing the "scum" on the streets. You even have a group feeling that it's a Jewish man doing the killings. You also have the poor resenting the police and refuses to help because they feel that the police don't care about them. These items are the most interesting thing working here but the direction keeps them from really being something special. Both Bergin and Anwar turn in good performances as does Samuel West as Prince Albert. There have probably been just as many Ripper movies as actual myths about the man and they're all of mixed quality. The mysterious around the case is what keeps the legend growing but this film here isn't one of the betters one out there and is for completest only.

This was terrible! I guess it's a very romantic notion that the Heir Presumptive could have been "Jack the Ripper," but since there's proof that he was out of the country when most of the murders were committed, why even try? Also, why throw in the love story? Just for the sake of it? It's too bad that these fine actors were wasted on such an awful concept. Samuel West, especially, is one actor I'd like to see in more movies stateside.

Come on guys, give it a break. It wasn't all that bad. As an amateur historian on the history of England, I know perfectly well that it's HIGHLY unlikely that Prince Eddy did it. Proving who Jack the Ripper was, however, did not seem to be the main objective of the film. It was entertaining, no matter what its historical value is.

In casting Sam West as the villainous and elusive Prince Eddy, the filmmakers managed to take an actor that was so unbelievably wholesome looking and turn him in the epitome of evil. Sam West is one of my favorite actors and I admit that this may make me a little biased in his favor. BUT, his skill as an actor is undisputed by critics everywhere. His portrayal of Eddy made you hate him and pity him all at the same time. This is an extremely hard thing to do and I admire him for it. The fact that one knows that it is Prince Eddy from almost the first scene makes this even more apparent.

Patrick Bergin seemed to play backseat, but his subtle East End accent and pure innocence in the ways of polite Victorian society, made him the perfect actor for the character. Perhaps if his character had been slightly more developed, he could have stepped to the same level as West, but the script did not allow for it. Given what he was given, I think that Bergin did a wonderful job.

Gabrielle Anwar did a good job as the feisty ex-prostitute heroine, but her character wasn't given much breathing space. She was playing a stereotype and this was one of the things that annoyed me greatly. The character of Florie seemed to play into the stereotype of saucy-romance-novel heroine. Perhaps if she had not been so tragically good, brought down by her surroundings, it might have been more tolerable, but as her character was predictable (though of course admirable), it would have been better for the film.

Michael York irritated me, but that's probably just too much prejudice on my part anyway. Apart from a few complaints about the story-line (the romance aspect), I think that the film set out what it meant to accomplish--to prove both that royalty is fallible (and periodically homicidal, though this might be a bit of a stretch given the world's current monarchs) and that you can't always judge a book by its cover. Apart from the sadistic little moustache (the height of fashion at the time--everyone was doing it), Sam West appears to be the perfect company. Except the fact that he's a homicidal maniac inside. That might dampen dinner a bit.

Overall, not bad. Rent it, don't recommend buying it unless you're a die-hard Sam West/Patrick Bergin fan. You probably won't be hideously disappointed unless you're a Ripper-ologist, in which case, you might want to skip it because its little historical inaccuracies are irritating. The acting, however, will not disappoint.

Treat this as a love story (albeit a little insipid) amid the gruesome goings-on in Ripperland, but not as a theory in Ripperology, and it turns out to be not a bad movie...not a good one...but I've seen worse.

The suspect is not a hot favourite with Ripperologists (or me), but he cannot be totally discounted. Although apparently the prince supposedly had cast iron alibis on each occasion of the murders, the Establishment (as was inferred by the movie) could quite easily have fabricated them and instigated a cover-up. (And royalty-bashing always seems to be a popular pastime. Security in the palace too, seems to have been as lax then as it is today.) Patrick Bergin although putting in a reasonable performance as Inspector Hansen was, to my mind, totally miscast. His Cockney accent seemed to be more a mixture of an Irish brogue and an Aussie drawl with just a soupçon of "'ow's yer father" thrown in. His side-kick was even worse. Still I suppose Michael Caine couldn't really be approached again, considering he'd already portrayed the real-life character of Inspector Aberline. Plus the fact that he'd probably have avoided this like the plague...(or "Swarm: the sequel").

Samuel West, reliable as ever, played the royal rip with gusto, and looked as if he actually enjoyed the role. I suppose "hamming it" would be more accurate. However, as far as the acting went, he was the pick of the bunch.

I don't honestly think this piece of hokum was meant to be a serious contender for the final solution. The story could just have easily been set in any Murder Mystery movie, but without the same impact. Nothing like a bit of Rippermania to set the pulses racing.

Everybody wants to be the one to discover the identity of the Whitechapel killer, but to do that ALL the facts have to be considered, and you won't find them here. Just enjoy the movie for what it is. Entertainment...of a sort.

Not blazingly original, but still a well made film about the infamous Ripper murders. The cast is good, Bergin and Anwar are excellent and West is perfectly cast. Costuming, atmosphere and the like are up to big screen standards. Events and characters are modified a little for dramatic purposes, so true blue Ripper enthusiasts might find fault, but recommended for fans of Victorian period movies and general thriller/mysteries.