Ripper 2: Letters from Within (2003) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

There are really only two things you need to know about Ripper 2:

(1) It is a sequel to a movie which was confusing and totally unrewarding to begin with.

(2) The sequel was directed by Lloyd Simandl, the Prague-based master of cheapozoid Czechsploitation.

Here's a quick look at some of Lloyd's career:

  1. (4.47) - Crackerjack 3 (2000)
  2. (4.28) - Heaven's Tears (1994)
  3. (3.99) - Dark Confessions (1998)
  4. (3.91) - Autumn Born (1979)
  5. (3.76) - Escape Velocity (1998)
  6. (3.72) - Lethal Target (1999)
  7. (3.60) - Dangerous Prey (1995)
  8. (3.43) - Empire of Ash II (1988)
  9. (3.43) - Ripper 2: Letter from Within (2003)
  10. (3.16) - Ultimate Desires (1992)
  11. (3.07) - Chained Heat II (1993)
  12. (2.72) - Last Stand (2000)
  13. (2.70) - Fatal Conflict (2000)

A quarter of a century of filmmaking and his career highlight is Crackerjack 3! You just know that mommy and daddy Simandl must be proud of their little rascal.

My concluding comment on the first Ripper film was, "So if you figure this out, you can explain it to me." Well sir, the first film was a masterpiece of clarity, as straightforward and lucid as The Sound of Music, compared to this version.

Just about all we know for sure is that the lead character from the first film, Molly, is in an asylum for the mentally ill. Nothing else is certain. She imagines things. She imagines things about imagining things. She imagines things about imagining things about virtual reality. In that virtual reality there are other people creating a virtual reality with her. Or maybe she just imagined them. In one level of the fantasy, she can get to computers which control what is happening on another level. Or maybe she is just imagining that as well. I got completely lost about what was real and what was imagined, and completely confused by how many levels each scene was removed from reality. She could wake up from a dream only to find out later that she was only dreaming about waking up from a dream. I think some scenes were nested as many as four levels inside other levels, making the entire film like one of those Russian puzzle boxes.

Lloyd Simandl's current specialty is soft core sex films. This is not one of those, but it includes elements of that genre, like long and irrelevant scenes of gratuitous sexual acts between random strangers in a Czech sex club. I suppose you may consider than a plus or a minus. I vote minus.

Apart from some impressive photographs of old castles and Prague street scenes, I can't think of any genuine positives in this film. It is freakishly incoherent. It isn't very scary, or even especially gory. The very end of the film is one of the oldest clichés in the book. The DVD is void of features, and overpriced. There just isn't much good to say. Essentially, this movie bites the big one.



  • No features
  • the transfer is widescreen, anamorphically enhanced, and is not especially good (many scenes are grainy)



Myfanwy Waring shows her buns and breasts.

Lots and lots of random women, all unrelated to the plot, are seen briefly in virtual reality scenes.

The Critics Vote ...

  • No major reviews online

The People Vote ...

The meaning of the IMDb score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics, or a C- from our system. Films rated below five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but will be considered excellent by genre fans, while C- indicates that it we found it to be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C- that often, because we like movies and we think that most of them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below C-.

Based on this description, this is an E.

Return to the Movie House home page