Jill The Ripper

OCTOBER 9, 2007


Here’s another movie that had so much promise in the title: Jill The Ripper. So, I'm thinking: a female serial killer, preying on male prostitutes and/or strippers; totally terrifying for guys to watch... And since it stars none other than Dolph Lundgren (always my favorite of the little group of late 80s/early 90s action stars), I was pretty hopeful for an entertaining little piece of junk movie.

But my hopes were dashed almost immediately, as the credits came on screen. They used Courier New for the damn credit font. How boring can you get??? Plus, the film is set in Boston, and it’s quite obviously Canada (though they at least got the right type of police cars). And for reasons I am still a bit fuzzy on, the film is set in 1977. Luckily, being shot in Canada (not even a single establishing shot of Boston proper), the film is spared the clichéd idea of cutting to a row team on the Charles, or the Citgo sign, or whatever. So there’s something.

However, all that would be OK if the plot hadn’t been so needlessly convoluted. Rather than simply have a damn serial killer killing dudes and Dolph always one step behind, like your Sevens and what not, the movie has crooked cops, crooked politicians, a dominatrix or two, adoption memories, hookers, and Dolph’s drinking problem. And like 3 killings. Dolph may be a pretty smart guy (he had a full scholarship to MIT!) but his movies should never require any sort of active brain process. His best films (Universal Soldier, I Come In Peace, Army Of One) are straight forward and over the top, and that is why we love him.

But if he simply must make a “real” film, good Christ, at least make it interesting. The only time the film even remotely picks up is when the Red Power Ranger shows up. Granted, she’s not as hot as the Pink one, but still, better than nothing.

The rest of the film is just Dolph drinking, occasionally getting into lackluster fights with assorted goons, walking around a tunnel, macking on his dead brother’s wife, and occasionally going to the lamest fetish club in cinematic history. Christ, the film is seemingly intent on never being exciting. At one point a fight between Dolph and a bouncer is stopped cold when the bouncer recognizes him from high school, and then spends the next few minutes dishing out helpful exposition to a guy he was just about to knock out cold.

Also, like I said before, if the filmmakers are providing me with ample evidence that they don’t really give a shit, then they lose me. And that is certainly the case here, as we see Dolph look at a newspaper about a half hour into the film. The camera cuts to a close up of the headline, and:

Are you fucking kidding me? They couldn’t spend 10 min making a legit, complete front page mockup, so they had to just lazily place a bit of non-matching paper with the relevant info over a real article? Come on!

This should have been Dolph’s Eye See You. But instead, it’s his... uh... I dunno. Some other shitty movie Stallone made that was worse than Eye See You I guess.

What say you?

1 comment:

  1. Let's face it.No one watches e Dolph Lundgren flick for it's intellectual content or Oscar winning screenplay/direction/music etc.Dolph Lundgren spells action and/or sizzling scenes.Jill the Ripper has oodles of the latter and I ain't complainin'! The Swedish hunk has always had the distinction of being the most 'tied up'hunk in our flicks. Here,he gets bound THRICE!And each of them a sizzler! My prize goes to the last bondage scene where the camera lovingly shows in close-up his hands being bound with a pantyhose(?). Must admit,this movie gave me a prize boner!! Let the nerds go and watch movies directed by Robert Redford!


Movie & TV Show Preview Widget