Watch Hands of the Ripper For Free

Thanks for the memories!

So much average

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

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

A great title for a great Hammer horror film, bursting with the Gothic atmosphere we all know and love. Instead of the latest monster, be it Dracula or Frankenstein, Hammer opted for the psychological thriller in this film, in much the same way as DEMONS OF THE MIND or FEAR IN THE NIGHT. And it works. The setting is the grim and gloomy back streets of London, familiar to us from things like THE CREEPING FLESH. Personally I love this type of setting myself, and Hammer were among the best at bringing us sleazy horror full of prostitutes and sexual repulsion.What helps to make the film work is the distinguished cast, lead by a stern and commanding Eric Porter (THE LOST CONTINENT) as Dr. Pritchard, whose philosophy that the end always justifies the means leads him to coldly dismiss the bodies that Anna has recently murdered. Rees, who plays the young schizophrenic girl, does a great, scary believable job of conveying the difficult impression that there are two personalities in her body trying to get out. The supporting cast is also effective, especially Keith Bell and Derek Godfrey.While the score may not be one of Hammer's most memorable, the images on screen always hold the viewer's attention. I think that Hammer made a brave and correct decision to move away from the more traditional monster horrors in the early '70s and tackle some more psychological terrors, and this film's treatment of a mental disorder is both intriguing and sometimes frightening. The pacing is also good, and the film seems to fly by, while the ending at St Paul's Cathedral is a powerful finale where death and destruction are the order of the day.Of course, as the more lenient approach to gore arrived in the '70s, Hammer decided to fill their films with as much of it as possible. Thus, there are four gruesome occurrences in this film, each worse than the previous one. A woman is impaled through a thick wooden door; another woman has her throat slashed in graphic detail (Fulci would be proud). A seductive lesbian prostitute has a handful of hatpins shoved straight into her eye, but the most cringe-worthy moment is when Porter gets a sword stabbed into his side and has to pull it out by hooking it on a door handle and ripping himself off it. Good drama, definitely. Despite what the critics might say, HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a disturbing exercise in fear and deserves another look.

Hands of The Ripper is a well made but slow-paced 1971 offering from Hammer. Some nice acting from Eric Porter and Angharad Rees offers some compensation for a rather lugubrious tale of Jack The Ripper's daughter, who, when subjected to sparkly flashes of light followed by a kiss (which happens about five times in the movie, straining credulity to breaking point) is psychically possessed by the spirit of her old Dad, dispatching all and sundry in variously nasty ways.As a take on the Ripper story, this doesn't really work. As usual the prostitutes on display here are mainly glamour types with little attention to veracity (a few matronly ladies do make it into the mix) and Eric Porter's Freudian Doctor is surely the most misguided psychoanalyst ever put on screen, even disposing of the bodies when Anna kills.Horror movies were soon to descend to body count status and this is a kind of prototype. We get Dora Bryan impaled on a poker, Marji Lawerence's throat gorily slashed and Lynda Byron with hat pins stuck in her eye. Squelch! The main trouble with Hammer at this point is that they were making too many horror films - haven't counted exactly but about 12 in 1970/71 alone. They flooded the market and diminished audience interest. Still, on it's own Hands of The Ripper is not a bad little film. Earnest and rather glum, with an effective ending set in St Paul's Whispering Gallery.

Hammer did some very good monster films in the 1950's and 60's, but by the 1970's, they were running out of gas and rehashing some tired old idea.The plot is that Jack the Ripper's daughter watched her father brutally murder her mother, and is set into murderous rampages whenever she sees shiny things and is kissed on the cheek.I kid you not, this is the plot. She is taken in by a Kindly Doctor with no sense, and she proceeds to murder a few people.Again, all the style of a Hammer film, no real substance to speak of. It's "Hammer Lite". "Taste Grate, Less Killing".