Jack's Back (1988) 6 out of 10 stars ⭐ A Good Movie, That Could Have Been a Great Movie...

A Good Movie, That Could Have Been a Great Movie...

JACK'S BACK (1988) 6 out of 10 stars ⭐

BASIC PLOT: 

A series of Jack the Ripper style murders are terrorizing the disenfranchised people of Los Angeles. Dr. John Westford is an intern, at a free clinic, trying to help, during this reign of terror. His boss, Dr. Sidney Tannerson (Rod Loomis), is a tyrant, who loves to berate and belittle the downtrodden clientele. He even castigated a pregnant prostitute for her lifestyle, in front of the whole clinic. John recognizes her as his prom date, ten years earlier. He decides to check on her, since she fits the profile of the predicted next victim. What he doesn't realize is, there's more than one killer out tonight. Now, it's up to John's twin brother, Richard to discover who the killers are, and clear both their names.

WHAT WORKS: 

*ANCILLARY CHARACTERS MOTIVATIONS ARE CONVINCING Dr. Battera's (Robert Picardo) reaction to Richard, coming to his home in the middle of the night, is well written, and believable. It was good to see a plausible and convincing scenario, play out.

*GOTTA LOVE THAT CHRIS MULKEY! Chris Mulkey gives a hilarious performance as sleezy Detective Scott Morofsky.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: 

*ALL POLICE ARE NOT STUPID! I have a real problem with the plot device, "all police are idiots". Are some police stupid? Sure! Are ALL police stupid? HELL NO! Why does the police captain announce the killings solved, before an autopsy is done on the victim, or John? Why do they assume it was John or Richard? They have no evidence on either, and usually the person screaming, "CALL THE POLICE!," is not your bad guy.

*SPOOKY TWIN BEHAVIOR DOESN'T MAKE YOU A SUSPECT Suspecting Richard because he felt his brother's pain, wouldn't make him a suspect, especially since Dr. Carlos Battera (Robert Picardo) is present when Richard is interrogated. Spooky twin behavior, such as empathetic phantom pain and ESP, are documented medical phenomena, taken seriously by mental health professionals.

*CAUSE OF DEATH WOULD BE WRONG The medical injuries sustained from hanging, are very different from manual strangulation, especially when done in the prone position. In wrongful death, autopsies are always performed. The medical examiner would instantly know John was murdered.

*WHY ARE THE ANCILLARY CHARACTERS AFRAID OF RICHARD? He did nothing, but waitresses won't serve him beer? That doesn't make any sense.

*PLOT HOLES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH The witness, sees John chasing another man. We see her point of view, and another individual is running down the hallway, being chased by John. This fact changes the whole scenario, from 'man running from scene of murder', to 'man chasing another man from scene of murder'. This is another fact that is ignored by police, and apparently the witness. This should have been reworked by Rowdy Herrington.

*WHY DO THE POLICE FOCUS ON IN RICHARD? Once the cops are convinced it's not John, why do they focus on Richard? The witness DID NOT see a man with a scar, so why do they think it's him? To get a warrant in the USA, you have to articulate, to a judge, probable cause. The police have NO PROBABLE CAUSE to get a warrant for Richard (or John for that matter)! Did the police ask Richard if he knew the victims? Did they ask him where he was when the murders occurred? Means, motive and opportunity are questions the police are interested in, not supposition. This is a LUDICROUS logic fallacy (◾see below). We're supposed to just accept this, but it's insulting to the audience, and Rowdy Herrington should know better.

*RICHARD WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND DR. BATTERA Psychiatrist and Psychologist always take precautions regarding their home address and phone number. Richard would never be able to find Dr. Battera's (Robert Picardo) home address.

*TERRIBLE MOVIE POSTER! C'mon guys, I know this is low budget, but I could do better with a trip to the crafts store.

*I'M SO SICK OF SEEING WOMEN CRYING IN THE CORNER, instead of helping the man that's trying to save them. It pissed me off in 1988, and it still does today.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: 

*I would recommend this movie to James Spader fans, Cynthia Gibb fans, slow burn thriller fans, and those of us who love all things '80's. It is low budget, but that's part of it's charm. It has some real ◾fallacy (see below) problems, and circular reasoning problems, but is still an enjoyable thriller.

CLOSING NOTES: 

*THIS IS A LOW BUDGET MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. Movies with a much lower budget, have to make sacrifices, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews. Hope I helped you out.

*I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN PSYCHOLOGY, hope this analysis isn't too clinical.

TERMS: ◾A fallacy, (AKA paralogia) in psychology, is the use of invalid, or otherwise faulty reasoning, in the construction of an argument. On the surface, it can seem to make sense, but once you apply logic or facts to the argument, it falls apart. One of the fallacies in this movie, was the cops assuming Richard was the killer, simply because his brother wasn't. The cops were sure it was John, then an alibi presents for John, so it must be Richard. Why? There's no new evidence, it just 'feels' right. Not utilizing the facts of the story, and applying them to character's behaviors, can lead to fallacies, or circular reasoning, a trap many writers fall into. Without these fallacies, this movie would have gone from mediocre, to outstanding.