On J List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
Jack the Ripper (1988)
Rate:
3
Viewed:
8/25
8/25:
Jack the Ripper is the most famous serial killer in history for a couple of reasons: his catchy name and he
was never caught.
I thought Jack the Ripper would be an interesting miniseries, but it turned out to be a total waste of
time. 98% of what's shown isn't true, choosing to follow a thoroughly discredited book authored by
Stephen Knight: Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution. I laughed at the end when the two coppers got their
man after all because if it was that obvious through John Netley, then surely the whole thing would've been put
to a stop way before then.
The biggest trouble when it comes to researching the case is there aren't a lot of facts to work with.
That's because too much fiction was manufactured in order to drive newspaper sales. Not single
shred of evidence exists today. The three specific letters are fake due to a lack of chain of custody.
You may see Jack the Ripper getting credit for eleven murders, but only between four and six are definite
because of the extremely similar characteristics. They happened in Whitechapel and Spitalfields from
August 31 to November 9, 1888, including twice in one night.
Today, as it's been the case for the last six decades, we have idiots for armchair detectives coming up with
the final solution to the mystery. No, it's not, and there will never be, even through DNA testing. Nobody
knows who murdered these women, and it happened 137 years ago. Everybody's dead, and who cares? The main
thing is that the killings ceased. Okay, fine...suppose we finally find out who Jack the Ripper was. Then
what? Exactly. Philip Sugden, the author of The Complete History of Jack the Ripper [the only book that I
absolutely recommend] said the following:
"Sadly, the misinformation promulgated in books today is not simply a product of reliance upon untrustworthy
sources. For, as far as most Ripperologists are concerned, the truth runs a very poor second to selling a pet
theory on the identity of the killer. This means that evidence in conflict with the theory is liable to be
suppressed or perverted, that fiction is frequently dressed up as fact, and that evidence in support of the
theory is sometimes completely invented. There is a long history of dishonesty and fraud in Ripper research."
Back to the miniseries, it has some atmosphere, and uh...uh...uh...that's it. I wish the filmmakers would stick
to the facts and nothing else. Therefore, the running time can be cut down by two hours. I've got to love the
shouty Michael Caine. In other words, he embarrassed himself. Jane Seymour is useless; in fact, I don't know
why her character is part of the show. As for the rest of the cast, they're fine by playing along.
All in all, "advertising itself in advance as a solution to the century-old mystery of the murderer's identity
using newly discovered original evidence," Jack the Ripper is fraudulent.