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.

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. Angharad 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. It makes for good drama, definitely. HANDS OF THE RIPPER is a disturbing exercise in fear and deserves another look.

The infant daughter of Jack the Ripper is witness to the brutal murder of her mother by her father. Fifteen years later she is a troubled young woman (Angharad Rees) who is seemingly possessed by the spirit of her father.

I just finished watching Hammer's "Demons of the Mind" and was rather disappointed, so I decided to watch another Hammer of the same era to wash my palette clean. This was Peter Sasdy's third film for Hammer, following "Taste the Blood of Dracula" (1970) and "Countess Dracula" (1971).

The use of Freudian psychoanalysis (and the illness of "hysteria") is an interesting touch, particularly considering the age Jack the Ripper's daughter would have been. I also particularly like the men's pointy mustaches.

Why do films about killers systematically hunting prostitutes never get old?