Author: Invisigoth
Monday, 13 August 2001 - 07:23 pm |        |
...i just hope that the masses wont go to see this movie and think that it's fact. should we prepare for a lot of people coming in with "facts" gathered from a few showings of "From Hell"
Joanne |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 01:30 am | |
They will. It will enforce the impression that the Ripper was a royal. But as long as it's a good movie and it entertains people, that's all that really matters. After all, what good is a serial killer if you can't have fun with him? 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 10:53 am | |
Hi, Joanne:
Unfortunately one of the "vices" of modern-day film making is that the film makers are able to conjure up reality so well in terms of the authenticity of the costumes and that they can make a motion picture that masquerades as history. Thus, I fear the large majority of people will think this is the way it actually happened, instead of the film being viewed as the fiction it really is.
In fact, there are two Jacks, the Jack of the world of entertainment and the Jack of the reality of 1888. The truth is that since 1888 the Jack of fiction and entertainment has taken over from the real Jack.
The press reports section of this site contains a short article in the East London Observer of 17 August 1889 about a play about the Ripper called "Jack l'Eventreur," written by French playwrights Messrs. Xavier Bertrand and Louis Clairan, that was shortly to be staged at the Chateau d'Eau Theatre in Paris. As the reporter notes, "The legendary Jack will assuredly be wanting in ordinary human curiosity if he fails to avail himself of one of the numerous cheap trips to the French capital, in order to see for himself what a couple of ingenious French playwrights, well versed in the physiology of crime and criminals, have made for him." See Here and Here. This must have been one of the first dramatizations if not the first dramatization of the Whitechapel murders. It would indeed have been incredible if, and not impossible, that Jack saw himself on the stage. He probably got a few guffaws if he did.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Invisigoth
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 07:16 pm | |
well there's one good thing about this. that audiences will go see the movie, but they won't be particularly compelled to go to the site and start chatting much about JTR on the message boards. it's only those who are interested in JTR in the first place that would consider it normal to pursue interest in this subject matter.
Joanne |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 08:02 pm | |
be prepared for a host of "new" ripper sites to pop up after the film comes out. they'll last a month or two, and then die...
mark |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 14 August 2001 - 11:19 pm | |
Considering Depp's track record and the lack of general appeal this film will have, I don't expect it to have more than moderate success, although I think it will rent well. Hopefully it will help Stewart Evans and Ivor Edwards sell more copies of their books. Talk about perfect timing!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Invisigoth
Wednesday, 15 August 2001 - 12:52 pm | |
anyone else think his role resembles the one he had in Sleepy Hollow? I even notice the similar haircut...i saw the preview in theaters and i at first thought that they were rereleasing Sleepy Hollow for some reason.
I wonder how they're going to handle JTR? Hmm. I wonder if they're going to present the supernatural demon angle that movies seem to like to use. "He's not merely a serial killer, he's really a satanic demon bent on destroying the world."
Obviously the fiction has to be played and nothing can be totally accurate...
Joanne |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 09:50 am | |
It has just been announced that "From Hell" will make it's preview here, at the Toronto International Film Festival which runs from September 6 to the 15. As it will be one of the gala films, tickets will be hard to come by but it should include cast members and the directors. I'll be there.
Wolf. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 10:36 am | |
Wolf,
Take your camera! It looks like you're going to get the scoop. Lucky you!
Invisigoth,
There's been a lot of comparison between Sleepy Hollow and From Hell due to Depps involvement, and the only reason I can see for this is they are both period pieces involving powerful killers. However, they take place over a century apart (1770's and 1880's), one is based on a work of fiction, the other a true story; and Sleepy Hollow was a tongue-in-cheek tribute to gothic horror from Tim Burton while 'From Hell' looks to be a more serious effort from the gritty Hughes Brothers. You are right, though, since most people have a hard time discerning between Gothic and Victorian and since both films pit Depp against a seemingly unstoppable killer, the comparison will continue to be aplenty. And that's fine with me, as long as it's a good film. I just hope it fairs better at the box office than Sleepy Hollow!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:47 am | |
| WOLF,PLEASE DON'T CATCH YOURSELF IN THE REFLECTION! |
Author: adam wood
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 06:25 pm | |
Hey Wolf
If you can bring anything with you to the conference a couple of weeks later I'd be grateful...
Adam
ps I have the final movie trailer and a set of posters from Fox under my desk - ready for viewing at the end of September! |
Author: Qbase
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 09:05 am | |
Hello,
The From Hell website should be up and running I have been told. The web address is:
http://www.fromhellmovie.com/
Enjoy!
G |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 10:35 am | |
Hi Adam, I'll see what I can score from the Festival people.
Wolf. |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 10:49 am | |
| OK Woofl we are all awaiting your report. I think! ED |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 03:12 pm | |
For those interested here is the description of, FROM HELL, that is included in the Toronto International Film Festivals press release.
FROM HELL
Speculating on the motives and identity of the notorious Jack the Ripper, From Hell follows Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp), a brilliant yet deeply troubled man whose police work is aided by his psychic abilities. Assisted in the details of the case by a revered physician (Ian Holm), he befriends one of the women (Heather Graham) whose life is endangered. The most effective thriller horror since SEVEN, FROM HELL puts an intense psychological spin on this horrific legend.
Wolf. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 03:24 pm | |
| Thank's woof, so now we all know, don't we? ED. |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 03:31 pm | |
| Recently, and in a park very near to my house a man was discovered lying dead, he had an ice cream coronet on his head which was covered with strawberry's and hundreds-and-thousands. I think he topped himself; what's your opinion Woof? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 24 August 2001 - 06:25 pm | |
Who's Woof? You've got dogs on the brain, Ed.
They're right about August being the silly season.
How's Gemma?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott Weidman
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 01:54 pm | |
Greetings from Cali,
I echo your sentiments, Chris, regarding a doppelganger tale of two jacks. Reality over blockbuster would have been wonderful, but this will be better than nothing. I do believe, however, another actor for the role of Abberline should have been selected. While the character portrayed by Mr. Depp will have visions of murder, most viewers will experience disturbing flashbacks of Sleepy Hollow. Mind the flaming pumpkins, Johnny! The film should prove to be a success nonetheless and I look forward to seeing it.
Best regards,
Scott |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 03:37 pm | |
| Sounds like a shaggy dog story Ed !!! |
Author: D L Lewis
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 03:14 am | |
Dear Scott,
I think Johnny Depp is a terrifically underrated actor - has anyone seen Ed Wood? Or Nick of Time? Sleepy Hollow? or Edward Scissorhands? Dead Man? All good films with a strong performance. If any american actor can pull it off, it will be Depp. Heather Graham worries me a little? Would her management let her be mutilated? or is the old switcheroo on the cards?
DLL |
Author: Scott Weidman
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 05:36 am | |
Hello DLL,
My comments in regards to Johnny Depp were not aimed as critical of his acting ability by any means, but rather his having been selected to portray Inspector Frederick Abberline in particular. I just feel that an actor with a bit more grit and charisma, or the fusion of the two, would have been a better choice for the part, that's all. I'd much rather have people react with the feeling that there are probably better candidates for the role than the feeling that, well, he's the best they could come up with. That said, I wish Mr. Depp all the luck in the film world that his portrayal is a successful one. And I was a fan of his way back in the days of 21 Jump Street, and I enjoyed The Ninth Gate and Ed Wood, so I am quite aware of his versatile talent. I just don't believe he is the best candidate for this particular role. Just my opinion at this time though, perhaps once I see the film I will feel differently. Stranger things have happened.
In regards to Heather Graham's role as Mary Kelly, I think she'll be just fine. I think it is about time she received a solid role rather than portraying yet another face in the crowd. I really enjoyed her brief appearance in the cult film favorite Swingers, her scenes with Mike Favreau were priceless. She exhibits a rather unique and unassuming beauty and I believe she will grab the bull by its horns, no matter how great the challenge, and nail (or postmortem knife?) this role quite nicely. And I also believe that Depp's potentially successful portrayal of Abberline will more than abundantly rely on the anticipated success of Graham's portrayal as Mary Kelly. Again, just my opinion.
Can't wait for the film's release.
Regards,
Scott |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 06:07 am | |
"with the feeling that there are probably better candidates for the role than the feeling that, well, he's the best they could come up with.."
Splutter. *choke*
"In regards to Heather Graham's role as Mary Kelly, I think she'll be just fine. I think it is about time she received a solid role"
*falls on floor in dead faint*
Okay. Deep breaths here. Johnny Depp is a critically acclaimed actor because he only takes on roles that have some sort of challenge and appeal to him, because he doesn't accept the cheezy, "blockbuster" type rolls that might get him recognition from the groups of people who feel that "Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back" and "Austin Powers" are high art forms.
Heather Grahams' acting ability is all in her breasts. And I don't think playing a dead prostitute will be that much of a challenge for her. She acts the whore very well and her portrayal is always dead. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 07:32 pm | |
The key question is:
"does he remove his earing?" |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 07:48 pm | |
Ooh I hope not..it's so nibble-able. And really it is possible that a Victorian inspector would have been a fashion forward kind of guy...especially since he was psychic.
Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 06 September 2001 - 10:08 pm | |
Hi, Jon:
At least he doesn't have a tongue stud or a cheek piercing, look on the bloody bright side!
Chris |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 12:57 am | |
Hello all,
Johnny Depp rules. 'Nuff said. Although I will agree that he's not 'historically correct' as he's not 50 and fat, but oh well. I agree with Alegria as to Johnny's choices in roles. He turned down Speed and a number of other blockbusters. Not all of his films are winners (Astronaut's Wife sucked bad) but he's pretty consistent and he certainly doesn't lack credibility.
As for Heather Graham, neither am I impressed by her nor do I detest her (as I do Wynona Ryder). She's just another Hollywood Bimbette. As far as young actresses go I must admit Charlize Theron has a certain charisma and Gwenith Paltrow seems to be doing wonderfully, but my favorite performance from a female to date is probaby Holly Hunter in 'The Piano'. That one floored me. Glen Close in 'Dangerous Liasons' was awesome as well.
Incidentally, from what I hear Heather doesn't die in the movie, but we'll see. Just a word of warning...If you're not able to put all you know about the Ripper case from your mind you will NOT like the movie. Just suspend disbelief for a couple of hours and THEN see what you think.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Just for the record my favorite actor is Sir Anthony Hopkins who was supposed to play Jack/Maybrick in the now defunct 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper' movie that was canned when it appeared the Diary may have been hoaxed. |
Author: D L Lewis
Friday, 07 September 2001 - 03:08 am | |
Whoops, i seem to have inadvertently opened a can of worms? i saw the preview, and depp looked fine. heather graham was also fine in boogie nights (erm, so i hear...ahem.)
depp is my favourite hollywood actor, because he'll take risks, even if he does do the occassional turkey. hopkins is also v. good, thoguh silence of the lambs has tended to limit him somewhat.
the film looks atmospheric (always important). i did have a chuckle at the promo line of 'an intensely urban setting' - i didn't know that whitchapel was rural!! apparently the comic it's based on (and here i am so out of turn for I've not read it, i deserve any slap you care to give me) covers all major theories - so hopefully the movie will too... |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 12:58 am | |
D.L.,
'urban' doesn't mean rural, it means inner-city. Rural refers to the country. The Hughes brothers are black and are known for the uran settings in their films, meaning the ghettos. Apparently they're attempting to not completely alienate their black fan base by drawing parellels between this film and their others. I don't blame them as this movie is, in some ways, a big departure. Otherwise, they're just doing their thing in a different ghetto, in a different country, in a different century. The movie will give Jack royal ties as that is what sells the most. So, like I said, suspend disbelief or you'll be disappointed.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 10:38 am | |
Tom,
If the Hughes brothers have Abberline and MJK walking off in the sunset at the end, they will be back making gritty urban setting movies (for their black fan base) before you can say Puff Daddy.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Scott Weidman
Saturday, 08 September 2001 - 08:40 pm | |
*** "Johnny Depp is a critically acclaimed actor because he only takes on roles that have some sort of challenge and appeal to him, because he doesn't accept the cheezy, "blockbuster" type rolls that might get him recognition from the groups of people who feel that "Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back" and "Austin Powers" are high art forms..." ***
Alegria- Have you ever seen the film Cry Baby? A huge block of cheese. And, of course, you're crazy if you think he hasn't chosen to take on some blockbuster type film roles. Sleepy Hollow was most definitely a blockbuster type film, although it didn't live up to its hype. Besides, didn't they make Sleepy Hollow action figures? Yep, that qualifies as a blockbuster, or at least an attempt to create one anyway. That said, I do like Johnny Depp as an actor. And I wish him well in regards to his performance in From Hell.
*** "Heather Grahams' acting ability is all in her breasts. And I don't think playing a dead prostitute will be that much of a challenge for her. She acts the whore very well and her portrayal is always dead..." ***
Alegria- Really? Heather has breasts??? Wow. Nothing gets past you. Why pick on an actress for having nice breasts? You have obviously selected the easiest route through which to hack on her. Heather does not act with just her breasts. She has yet to prove herself as a so-called critically acclaimed actress, yes, with that I must agree, and that is why I stated she deserved the opportunity to take on a better role. Or doesn't this role qualify as a solid role in your eyes? You must obviously feel that Mary Kelly was "just a whore" then, huh? Have you ever thought to see past your shortsightedness and consider that Mary Kelly was a REAL person, with REAL feelings? The role of Mary Kelly is not just about a "dead whore", Alegria. There are human characteristics involved. Or at least there should be. Besides, it's not like they have cast Pamela Anderson or anything, so why don't you give Heather the benefit of the doubt? She obviously had to audition for the role, amongst all the other "bimbettes", so the film makers must've appreciated something more than just her breasts and her "dead whore" performance, as you so eloquently stated. I think your comments were a bit harsh, but you are entitled to your opinion. To each his/her own.
Have a good weekend.
Scott |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 12:20 am | |
Scott,
What do you mean 'at least they didn't cast Pamela Anderson'? Don't you think Pam is deserving at a chance for a better role? Or are you just not able to see past her breasts and collegen injections? Are you saying that Pam is just a 'LIVING WHORE'? She is a REAL person, with REAL feelings. If she read your words she'd cry. Know your role.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Mary Kelly IS a dead whore! |
Author: Scott Weidman
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 08:29 pm | |
Hello Tom,
** "What do you mean 'at least they didn't cast Pamela Anderson'?" **
You obviously failed to recognize the sarcasm in the comment. Allow me to walk you through it. Alegria stated that Heather Grahams' acting ability was all in her breasts, with which I disagreed, so I threw a sarcastic bit out there. Pamela Anderson has publically admitted to having had her breasts enhanced, so, had she been cast instead of Heather Graham, Alegria's comment would've been better understood. I never stated anything negative about Pamela Anderson, so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thanks.
** "P.S. Mary Kelly IS a dead whore!" **
Thank you for clarifying that fact, Tom. Perhaps you should consider becoming a coroner. Heather Graham will be portraying an alive Mary Kelly in the film. Whether or not she dies at some point in the film has yet to be seen.
** "Know your role." **
And what exactly is my role supposed to be, in your opinion, Tom?
Cheers!
Scott |
Author: Scott Weidman
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 08:51 pm | |
Hi Tom,
Are you planning to attend the conference in Bournemouth? I look forward to meeting you.
Take it easy.
Scott |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 08:57 pm | |
Hi there Scott,
At the risk of being Radka-esque: Hmmmmm....
So we are supposed to recognize the sarcasm and humor in your response, but you aren't obligated to recognize that I was joking? If you are going to take everything so seriously, people will respond accordingly. Have a Valium on me. Maybe two. Ah heck..here's the bottle.
Peace, love and happiness to you all,
Ally |
Author: D L Lewis
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 10:02 pm | |
Dear Tom,
I know what 'rural' and 'urban' mean - i chuckled at the use of the word 'urban' in a film set in London - you could only give it an 'urban' setting... sorry for obtuseness... you've received a bit of a hammering this week, and i wish no problems. I'm unaware of the Hughes' brothers works. It' will be intereting to see how they move from one urban ghetto to another.
Will johnny depp speak in 'jive'? will they 'high-five' each other? will they all be crack addicts? By the way, Pamela couldn't play MJK, because she was preparing for Lady Macbeth with Kenneth Branagh!!! (Out, Out, Damnd' spot! - you clash with my red swimsuit)
(If you're going to alienate sections of the community, you may as well go all out! Just for the record, I KNOW that i was speaking in horrid stereotypes). |
Author: Scott Weidman
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 11:26 pm | |
Hi Ally (and Tom again),
Ally- Very well said, thanks. And thanks also for the offer to share your half-empty bottle of narcotics, but I believe you should finish off the lot yourself. Just for the record, it was you who first jumped in and ripped me apart (pardon the pun), with your *splutter* and *choke* criticism, so I merely responded in kind. A few of us were only sharing harmless opinions in regards to the actors and actresses cast in the film before you and Tom circled me, like a pair of territorial hyenas, and decided to initiate an insult game. While I sometimes enjoy a healthy war of words, I'm not remotely interested in one with either of you. Feel free to seek out and insult someone else at random. Oh, but the next time you decide to maliciously critique random comments, please be so kind as to address the person who made them first.
You really didn't expect me to remain silent after reading your unwarranted attempt to spoil a humble conversation between myself and another, did you? Although sometimes disarmed, I am never rendered defenseless.
And if you were truly "only joking" then why didn't you begin your critique with a neighborly "Hi Scott"? I can assure you I wouldn't have bitten. It was as if I wasn't worthy of your cordial acknowledgement or something. Nope, you just used my comments for your own abusement park without so much as a friendly "hello". I wouldn't have minded your tearing me apart so much if you had at least addressed them to me. I think it's pretty weak to use someone else's comments as dartboard scrutiny, especially when the comments were made only a day or two prior.
Aside from this huge misunderstanding, and that is exactly how this should be chalked up as (a huge misunderstanding), I still hope to meet you both at the conference in Bournemouth. And if neither of you have plans to attend then I will look forward to reading your future views and such in this message board.
Take care.
Scott |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 09 September 2001 - 11:40 pm | |
Scott,
I have no problems with you, although I get the impression I could read a book through your skin by candlelight. If you consider our above posts to have 'torn you up' then you probably think banning guns will cut down on crime. You talked about your own sarcasm, but couldn't see that my post was a sarcastic reflection of your own post, directly quoting from it at times? Also, Pam Anderson didn't have her 'breasts enhances' she got a boob job. It's hard to trust a man who doesn't call things what they are. People like that simply aren't sincere. You're not like that, are you? As for Bournemouth I'm too many thousands of miles away and too many thousands of dollars short to attend, but I hope you have a great time. So, why is Jack your favorite whore-killer?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Scott Weidman
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 12:45 am | |
Hi Tom,
** "...although I get the impression I could read a book through your skin by candlelight. If you consider our above posts to have 'torn you up' then you probably think banning guns will cut down on crime." **
Hey, I loved your opening sentence. Very creative. And fairly accurate as well, with the exception of the last part. I have a concealed weapons permit. Job-related purposes only, of course. Or perhaps I should just call it as it is? Okay. I got a gun.
** "So, why is Jack your favorite whore-killer?" **
I wouldn't necessarily refer to the Ripper as my favorite anything really, but the case is certainly most intriguing. Okay, I lied. Jack is indeed my favorite whore killer. But I enjoy them all. Ah yes, viscera strewn... gotta love it!
Actually, I am primarily attending the conference to see the debut of Jack the Musical. The conference itself will hopefully be gravy. I anticipate it to be truly enlightening. It's too bad you won't be able to attend.
Thanks for setting things straight. I greatly appreciate your direct approach.
Take care.
Scott |
Author: Ally
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 07:21 am | |
Hey there again Scott,
If you measure whether someone is joking on this board by whether they address you first, you will be in for trouble. Lots of people address you first and then insult you mightily. Lots of people don't address you first and then tease you. A better system is needed to evaluate. For my part, I don't always address someone, especially if I am joking. If I am going to be all serious, then I put their name in it so that they know I am referring my comments specifically to them. And there is no conversation on these boards that is just between two people. You are sharing it with about a hundred (conservative estimate) viewers a day. If in the future, I don't address you with Hey Scott! is not an indication of respect or disrespect. 
Unfortunately, I will not be going to the UK conference (do I hear the multitudes wailing?) You'll miss me I know, but what can I do? There's only so much joy that I can spread around. |
