bradleybean86 in theory this movie should/could have been awesome. unfortunately, it's probably the single most disappointing little known 80's B Horror film i've managed to track down in all my years of horror viewing. I love 'those' types of movies, the complete freedom to be crazy, violent, ridiculously funny, or even scary and disturbing if the colours are mixed correctly. This movie is none of those things. The 'ripper' is not-so-elegantly foreshadowed by his first 2 lines in the first 5 minutes in the movie, so even the most unsophisticated viewer will know exactly what will transpire towards the end. Also the red herring is shamelessly gallivanted around as if to say "it's this guy, its this guy, it's THIS GUY. And I think most of the IMDb and cult horror viewers like myself will struggle to not roll their eyeballs completely out of their sockets during the course of this movie.OK so the plot stinks! The acting is alright, there's a bit of a sub- plot love story between a younger more attractive James Spader (look up recent pictures of him as an example of how to NOT age gracefully :( and he's just not sexy enough to carry the 'mysterious dark loner' type guy. While horror movies do NOT need to have explicit amounts of gore or violence in order to be good; it certainly tends to help in films like this that just end up being completely boring.I'm assuming this film was originally produced to air on TV and then later video as even the uncut version has zero nudity or violence. Jack the ripper would be ashamed if he had seen this. That being said, if you really enjoy James Spader and whatever lady he co-stars with, if you have an affinity for slightly trashy murder mysteries (sans the mystery in this case) or if you had seen this movie decades ago, perhaps it is worth a revisit :)*also* be on the lookout for the single most ridiculous uppercut/ninja punch that I cannot believe wasn't edited out to look less ridiculous.

rixrex From the start it's obvious this is going to be an immature and predictable version of a Jack the Ripper take-off. Everything is telegraphed way in advance and we know who the ripper is from the very first scene in which we see him as the head of the free clinic chastising a prostitute. If you know the history of the true ripper, then that's it, you know who it's going to be in this pile of manure. Yes, it's manure and entirely predictable, and barely believable, even as melodrama. What free clinic chief is going to chase away an idealistic doctor? And also act as the neighborhood morals officer? This crud is so full of outdated political propaganda that it's laughable. And it's amateurish and inept. Hell, they couldn't even get the asst. editor's name right in the titles, using Bubinow instead of Rubinow, and NOT as a joke either. Only good thing here is Spader's better-than-average performance.

GettSmartt This may be a superficial observation, but for those of us who are fans of James Spader -- about 30 minutes into the film when we are introduced to Rick -- there is a great shot of Spader in bed. What a physique!! Oh la la! I would see the movie for that shot alone (smile) -- I warned you it was superficial. However, for a movie made in 1988, it seemed quite dated. I would have thought it was made in the 1970s. But, on the plus side, you really can't take your eyes off of Spader playing Rick -- he's terrific.

gridoon I didn't much like this movie. It's odd and unusual enough to keep you off-balance, but the plot has some gaps and unexplained parts.....(SPOILERS FOLLOW)Early on, we see a man committing a most brutal murder, but ultimately it is revealed that the "Ripper" is someone else. The whole behavior of the first man strikes me as inexplicable. Perhaps there is a curious kind of connection, a bond between the two killers, but it is never made clear. This script looks like a part of a greater whole that we don't get to see. (**)