Okay, so I write this blog last night, spend over an hour on it, hit “send,” and it disappears into the ether. So here I am, trying it all over again.

You get what “bad” and “ugly” are all about, right? For bad, think “Angel Eyes.” For ugly, think “Tuco”; And if you have no idea what I’m talking about, stop what you’re doing right now and rent The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly before you watch another Ripper film! Just remember: we love Tuco.

Once again, these are all Jack the Ripper movies. In chronological order…

The Phantom Fiend (1935, US title; 1932, The Lodger, UK title)
Anybody see Gosford Park? If so, you probably remember the character Ivor Novello. He’s the guy who spends most of his time playing and singing at the piano. Early in that film, the catty elderly woman makes some comment about his most recent movie having been a flop. The 1932 Lodger is that film. Novello had starred in Hitchcock’s silent Lodger several years earlier, and decided to make a sound version. But Miles Mander and the other writers wrote the script more to show off Novello’s musical talents than to tell a compelling story. The end result is a vanity production, in which Novello’s lodger woos the leading lady through song (and highly melodramatic speech). The movie does have some fine moments, but most of them occur when Novello is not on screen. RATING: UGLY

The Man in the Attic (1954)
In 1944, the most famous version of The Lodger, starring Laird Cregar, was released. Only 10 years later, this inferior (not to mention, gratuitous) version of virtually the same script appeared in theaters. It’s not all that bad if you haven’t seen the ‘44 Lodger. But if you have, it’s kind of laughable. Mediocre cast, with the exception of Jack Palance (who’s always interesting to watch). RATING: UGLY

“Knife in the Darkness” (1968 )
Episode of Cimarron Strip. Script writer Harlan Ellison, as always, blames this one on the director, but I’m not so sure. Was it the director who decided to have Jack kill an unlikely 8-10 people (I lost count somewhere), all in one night? This is fun and silly Ripper fluff. Kind of lame, but definitely watchable. RATING: UGLY

Jack the Ripper (1976)
I’m sure there are Jess Franco and Klaus Kinski fans out there who will object. But let’s face it, folks… Klaus can do better— heck even Jess can do better—than this! Granted, I have not seen Der Dirnenmörder in the original German. And yes, my rating for this film is partly the result of having suffered through the really really really bad English voice acting in the English dubbed version. But I would have problems anyway. Franco turns Jack into a dismembering killer, who dumps body parts in the Thames. I can take several variations on Jack’s modus operandi, but this is not one of them. Klaus looks like he’s getting ready for his moody turn in Nosferatu, which means, of course, that Jess is spending way too much time on Klaus’s face— and that just doesn’t work. This film is a killer vs. detective story, so it needs to move faster. It’s waaaaaay tooooooo slooooooow for its genre. And then there’s the necrophilia. Yeah, it’s possible that the killings did go down that way, but I don’t need to see it. RATING: Somewhere Between BAD AND UGLY—really really UGLY.

Lulu (1978 )
Pretentious silent art film version of the Wedekind plays, directed by artist Ronald Chase. Too busy being “arty” to do anything really interesting with the story. Yes, there is some nice cinematography, some bizarre set design, and a really studious re-creation of certain elements of silent cinema. But the film is boring, long, and just not very good. Before you think that I just like films geared towards action, let me add that I love Andrei Rublev and The Sacrifice by Russian filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky. Those are extremely slow moving and extremely arty 3-hour films. The difference between them and Chase’s Lulu is that they are good. RATING: BAD

Lulu (1980)
Directed by Polish erotic filmmaker, Walerian Borowczyk. Borowczyk is supposed to be an artistic director of eroticism. You would never know it by this movie (which, granted, is one of the most obscure in his oeuvre—so apparently there is some agreement on its worth). The version I saw was in French with Greek subtitles. It is possible that this version was edited down so that only the (un-erotic) “erotic” scenes remained. Regardless, what I saw had almost no plot coherence. You get the hint of Wedekind’s plays, but nothing to tie the story together from one of Lulu’s lovers to the next. Borowczyk also transforms the beautiful lesbian Countess Geschwitz into an old crone figure, who, yikes!, masturbates with her cane and on top of a portrait of Lulu. Just icky. Oh, and Udo Kier delivers a terrible performance as Jack the Ripper. This is almost impossible to find, and I would say: “Don’t seek it out”— not even if you’re a Borowczyk or Udo Kier completist. RATING: BAD

The Ripper (1985)
This is Tom Savini’s infamous Ripper movie. Savini has never stopped apologizing for this Direct-To-Video production, but actually, he’s one of the better elements in the movie. The Ripper has a great concept, but terrible execution. With the exception of Savini and Tom Schreier, the rest of the cast is… well, how do I put this nicely?… amateurish. They deliver what you would expect if someone turned on a video camera at a college dorm party and asked everybody to play a role, sight-unseen, from a script. Yes, the acting is that bad. And where was Savini when they shot the SPFX gore? The mutilations sure don’t look like his work! Still, the movie does get points for trying. The concept really could go far with a moderately budgeted remake, and there actually are some (intentionally) witty moments in the script. (The Conqueror Worm sequence is an absolute hoot, if you know that movie and pay attention to what’s actually coming out of the television). RATING: Somewhere Between BAD AND UGLY

Terror at London Bridge (1985)
Ever wonder what it would be like if you put Jack the Ripper at Havasu City and made a movie with David Hasselhoff and plenty of water sports? No? Well, apparently the makers of this made-for-TV-movie did. Lots of red herrings and plot twists. This movie is fun for awhile, but eventually it starts to drag on… and on… and on. Silly fluff. RATING: UGLY

Edge of Sanity (1989)
Ick! Yuck! I need to take a shower!!! Sleazy, voyeuristic, Ripper movie which in which pornography director Gerard Kikoïne makes an intrinsic association between sexuality and fatal violence. Too bad it’s one of Anthony Perkins’ last performances. RATING: BAD