Nonureva Really Surprised!

Jacomedi A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

trashgang Not bad at all, I lust say, even as it is on low standards for the tile being. But back then this must be a gory flick. All based on the Jack The Ripper case but pure fiction. Jack has a daughter and she does see Jack killing her mother. A doctor takes the daughter in his house to study her about doing weird stuff.Of course you know where this is going. For a Hammer production this one is made before Hammer did put in a lot of nudity. And even on part of the flick itself it sin't a Gothic story like we've seen from Hammer. It's just an underestimated flick.It wasn't boring at any moment and when killings take place it all looks creepy due the use of the camera. For geeks of Hammer it's a must see and for old school horror fans too but if you want to see a typical Hammer then this isn't going to satisfy you. Excellent acting, good story and well done effects.Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2,5/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

joe-pearce-1 Hammer did appear to be running out of steam as the 1960s gave way to the 1970s, and any of their later films that didn't star Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing or, better, both, was usually a bit disappointing. But not this one. There is much wrong with this film, mostly in the screenplay and the motivations, but it looks downright terrific throughout, is tremendously atmospheric at the right moments, and is about as convincingly late Victorian in aspect as any Technicolor film I can recall. The performances pretty much make the movie, especially those of Eric Porter, arguably one of the most underrated English actors of his time, at least on film (probably because all of his abilities came with a countenance that was not all that close-up-friendly or charismatic - think Kenneth Branagh twenty years later; he really looks like a leading man version of John Le Mesurier!), but he was a major stage and TV actor (watch the TV version of SEPARATE TABLES to be properly aghast at his abilities), who portrays a seemingly sane doctor doing very insane things without realizing it; Derek Godfrey, one of England's more perfect suave and classy villains; Marjorie Rawlings as a psychic who eschews crystal balls and sounds from afar; and England's national treasure, Dora Bryan, in an unusually nasty role (but when she stops being nasty, things only get worse for her!). Really, the film is perfectly cast throughout. When our seemingly sane doctor does come to his senses, he then goes almost mad to save the life of his daughter-in-law-to-be, for whom he has shown absolutely no real interest, concern or affection during the rest of the film and this is one of the screenplay's sore points. How mad? Well, cinema up to 1971 is notably short of scenes involving a sword being removed from a still-living body by use of a stationary doorknob. Take my word for it that it is a very effective moment, but how could it not be? There are others. But, no matter, because for the most part it works just fine. Lots of gore, yes, but to a more or less reasonable purpose and end; after all, nobody is going to watch this thinking it's a sequel to MARY POPPINS! The finale is near Hitchcockian in that the Hammer people actually make good use of a real landmark for the film's conclusion; offhand, I can't recall them ever having done so before. But the St. Paul Cathedral Gallery of Whispers is really something to see (and hear, I would imagine), and the director and cinematographer make much of it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that they make nearly as much of it as Hitchcock made of a similar holy place in VERTIGO. Well, that's my opinion, anyway. One of the better non-Lee or -Cushing Hammer horrors. (Warning: Stay away from the chopped-up American TV version, which also includes a gratuitous soundtrack of a doctor - Sigmund Freud, perhaps? - EXPLAINING MOTIVATIONS AND PLOT POINTS IN OVERDUB WHILE THE STORY IS IN PROGRESS! What were they thinking?)

MartinHafer When this film begins, a little girl is watching her father (presumably Jack the Ripper) killing her mother. Years pass and this young lady is now working for a sleazy medium--fooling folks into believing she can communicate with the dead. Little does her boss know but the young lady, Anna, is a psychopath--a murderous one at that! After killing the boss in a very bloody fashion requiring super-human strength, a local idiot decides to take Anna into his home and use Freud's techniques to cure the woman. And, since the police don't know for sure who's done the killing, bringing her into his home isn't a problem...until she starts killing again and again. And vivid and VERY grisly these killings are! This sure ain't a movie for kids to watch!This film IS entertaining and if you like seeing a lot of blood, are you in for a treat! However, at the same time the film never makes much sense. Who would bring a violent murderer into his home? Who would CONTINUE to keep her there after she then kills one of his maids?! And, who would CONTINUE to try to cure her after she stabs someone in the eye?! What also make no sense is after impaling someone with a saber, the guy is STILL able to remove the sword and run about London?!?! And this was no small sword!! Enjoyable but stupid.

LeonLouisRicci Way before Jason or Michael Sliced and Diced, this Gory Horror from Hammer's Late Period Set a Template and in a Lot of Ways other Films Noticed and Borrowed from Hammer.Upping the Violent and Blood Quota for the New Decade of the Seventies, Hammer uses Little Restraint here and even includes Needle to the Eye Nastiness that "Dr. Frederic Wertham" in His Exploitative "Science" Book Attacking Comics, "Seduction of the Innocent" seemed to Find Great Pleasure in Presenting while at the same time Feigning Revoltion from the Depiction.For the most part the Twist on "Jack the Ripper" Works Well, but some more Picky Fans might Find it a bit Repetitious. The Weakest Scenes in the Film is when a Medium or Psychic Channels minute Details about The Ripper's Daughter's Childhood. It Stretches to the Breaking Point even the Best "Sensitive" Abilities.Overall, it is a Good Looking Film as usual for the always Visually Interesting Hammer Studios and is one of the most Violent in its Catalog. The Beginning and Ending Scenes are quite Effective in Starting and Concluding this Lurid Tale of Psychological Mumbo-Jumbo and Victorian Hypocrisy.