|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 22 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Film / Movies (Fiction):
From Hell (2001):
Archive through 22 October 2001
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 19 September 2001 - 08:47 pm |        | Wolf - an excellent review of "From Hell," and one which I might just lift in toto for the October issue of RN! Having seen the theatrical trailer, I can attest to the truth of the visuals - if I can't have a Ripper movie directed by Tim Burton and designed by Peter Greenaway, this is the next thing. I'll buy the first round in Bournemouth, and you can tell me how you got the tickets.
As you may or may not know, Stewart Evans was one of the consultants to the film, so any historical correctness should properly be laid at his door. And having done some small bits of research for the film myself, I had an inkling the "famous grapes" were going to have a large part on the silver screen. Ah well. We must gird our loins and prepare for the onslaught of new Ripper "fans."
I look forward to seeing you and everyone else who will be attending the Conference in Bournemouth. I'll be opening Saturday morning with author Perry Curtis, and we'll be talking about JTR and the press. Come on up and buy me a drink. I'm the short, podgy prat with a beard - you can't miss me.
CMD |
Author: D L Lewis
Thursday, 20 September 2001 - 02:16 am | | Dear Kevin,
Touche and thanks for point - of course some historical accuracy is important... |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 20 September 2001 - 02:54 pm | | D L,
I think, in this day and age, you need more than "some".
I was watching the E Channel last night and they featured a four minute on segment on the Toronto Film Festival and mentioned 'From Hell'. Heather was interviewed and briefly commented on her past performances. Then ....
E: SOooo, you're a whore in this one.
Heather: Err-a- yes, I'm a whore.
E: Did you research the part?
Heather: Yes, I totally researched the part.
The E Channel then cuts to a 10 second snippet from the movie, and you see Heather, bouncing up and down, head towards the ceiling, in apparent sexual bliss. No words are spoken.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: DMR
Thursday, 20 September 2001 - 09:52 pm | | I am so excited about this film. I love the comic. However I do wish they would have picked someone other than Heather Graham. But I will be open to it :}
M |
Author: D L Lewis
Friday, 21 September 2001 - 02:57 am | | Dear Kevin,
I don't know that you need more than some - your point about Germany winning ww2 was apposite, particularly if JTR was the result of that, BUT, if you constructed a story in which Hitler's father (also JTR) escapes, and indoctrinates his son in his hatred of whores, and Jews, and etc. done well, would htis be a good film? (admittedly it sounds a bit fo a shocker...)
Schindler was not the saint portrayed in the movie, but few seemed to care. the battles at d-day were not house to house - they took place several months later, but it didn't matter, ultimately. the quesiton remains - does it fulfill its brief - to entertain (even us)?
Just some thoughts...
DLL |
Author: Qbase
Monday, 24 September 2001 - 08:56 am | | Hello,
The Official website is now open for viewing. Check it out at http://www.fromhellmovie.com
G |
Author: DMR
Monday, 24 September 2001 - 10:08 pm | | I was lucky enough to walk into a comic store here in Seattle and have the owner hand me a one sheet for this film. It is a really nice poster.
M |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 04:44 pm | | Hi All,
I must say that From Hell got a decent review in the October 22 issue of 'Time'. I hope to see the film on Friday.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 10:19 pm | | New York Magazine panned the film (John Leonard
does not seem to like Johnny Depp as an actor),
but felt that Sir Ian Holm's performance was
the best, most subtle one in the film.
The Sunday Arts and Leisure section (#2) of the
New York Times had an extensive, and interesting
article about Ripper films in general. It mentioned (besides the new one) THE LODGER, favoring Hitchcock's 1926 silent masterpiece
starring Ivor Norvello, where the suspect is
nearly lynched but is not the Ripper. It seemed
to underrate [my opinion] Laird Cregar's finely
polished, and even tragic version of THE LODGER
(1943) wherein he is the Ripper. In Cregar's case
it turned into a fatal success. After four years
of a growing reputation (mostly at 20th Century
Fox) as a fine character actor, Cregar finally
had a starring role. He was scheduled to do
a follow-up film, HANGOVER SQUARE. He made the
film, but he was a dying man. Cregar, like Sidney
Greenstreet and Francis Sullivan, was a heavy who
was physically heavy. Determined to lose weight
so he could become a leading man, Cregar went
on a crash diet (he does look thinner in HANGOVER
SQUARE)and had a fatal heart attack. A sad loss
of a talented actor.
Getting back to Ripper films, the Times article
mentioned the two Sherlock Holmes films (A STUDY
IN TERROR, and MURDER BY DECREE). It liked the
latter, a forerunner to FROM HELL.., and felt the
but felt the former to conventional in it's use
of Holmes (John Neville). A 1959 film was mentioned that starred John Le Messurier as a
"Dr. Stanley" Ripper, avenging his dead son.
In discussing MURDER BY DECREE and FROM HELL...
the author actually was slightly insulting. It
pointed out that the source, the "Masonic - Royal
Family Scandal" was the most popular with the
public, but that Ripperologists generally dismissed it. Apparently the author has not known of the reappearance, and attempted championing of the theory on the Board in recent months.
The Ripper has popped up in "bits" of film, most
notably (mentioned in the article) in LULU, the
two part silent film starring Louise Brooks. Lulu
is killed by the Ripper in the conclusion, as she
is in the original German play.
The only film that I can think of that was not
mentioned was a minor film in the mid 1950s, MAN
IN THE ATTIC, that starred Jack Palance as the
Ripper.
Jeff |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 04:21 am | | If anyone planning to see the From Hell would like to write a review of it for Ripperologist, maybe you could let me know.
Cheers
Paul |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 08:38 pm | | EXCUSE ME !!!!!!
I HAVE BEEN CHAMPIONING THE ROYAL CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS NOW , A LOWLY VOICE IN THE WILDERNESS WHEN NEARLY NO-ONE ELSE BELIEVED IN IT !!!!
Please !!!  |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 09:21 pm | | Sorry Simon, no offense was intended, but I was
thinking of Thomas Neagle's recent attempts at
reviving it.
Jeff |
Author: R.J.P.
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 10:46 pm | | | Jeff--There's also a pretty horrible Australian film from the 1990s called 'The Ripper' (I think), which is a love story of all things wherein Inspector Hanson tracks Albert Victor through Whitechapel and meanwhile falls for one of the witnesses, who seems to be based on Julia Venturney or a mixture of several of Mary Kelly's friends. There's a bad scene where a pyromaniacal Eddy burns a stable of horses to death. All in all, the acting wasn't too bad, but the film was oddly lacking in suspense and had no atmosphere whatsoever--a bad thing considering what a decent director could do with Whitechapel as a backdrop. Best wishes, RP |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 09:32 am | | Hi, RJ:
I agree with your comments about the appalling quality of the Australian film "The Ripper." Not to mention the historical bloopers, like showing Tower Bridge which was not built until 1894 and the Abberline-like character and the saved would-be last victim sailing off for Australia in a 1940s era steamer. Whatever its license with the truth at least I should think the Hughes Brothers effort will be sumptuous in terms of costuming and the verisimilitude of Whitechapel and the East End and should not make such blatant bloopers. Now as for Abberline being clairvoyant. . . . 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 02:30 pm | | | I think Thomas was more killing the theory off than championing it ! |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:14 pm | | Interesting quotation from USA Today October 18, 2001...
"Fans of From Hell's source, Alan Moore and Eddie Cambell's acclaimed 500-plus page graphic novel, have been criticizing the film version on the Web. But the guys shrug them off.
Say's Allen: "I laugh at these people with their Cokes and pizzas with no jobs or lives, concerned about what we are doing. What they don't realize is, this is a whole other entity. There's no way to do justice to the graphic novel unless it were a 10-part mimiseries."
Are they talking about this Web? Got to go, the pizza delivery man is knocking at the door.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: adam wood
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 05:56 pm | | Simon, I wonder if you'd be interested in commenting on Joseph Sickert's slot at the Bournemouth Conference, given your strong Royal conspiracy feelings, as an article/review in Ripperologist.
If so please email me at adam@chickenweb.co.uk
Cheers
Adam |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 09:33 pm | | RJP-Actually there are other films on the Ripper,
or linked to the story in part. The article in
the Arts and Leisure Section of the Sunday Times
mentioned TIME AFTER TIME (I think that was the
film's name) based on a novel of Michael Chricton,
wherein H.G.Wells (Malcolm MacDowell) invents a
time machine, and is chasing "Dr. Lionel Stevenson" (Jack - David Warner here) into the
future California of the 1970s. Mary Steenburgen
was also in it.
An interesting reverse story line was the film
MARY REILLY with Julia Roberts and John Malcovitch. Austensibly it was about a maid to
Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Henry Jeckyll who falls for his alter ego, Edward Hyde. The novella
only mentioned one servant of Jeckyll, his butler
Poole. Therefore, considering the similarity of
names, and how the public of 1888 were aware of
the stage version of the novella with Richard
Mansfield, I wonder if the screenwriter was
basing Mary Reilly on Mary Jane Kelly.
Oddly enough, the death of Mary Kelly was only
showed once (I am guessing at this, so somebody
will correct me)in a film, and it was in a movie
musical. In the film version of DAMN YANKEES!,
Ray Walston (the Devilish "Applegate") sings
a song, "Those Were the Good Old Days", lamenting
the days past when Wall Street crashed, cannibals
at missionary luncheons, Indians attacked covered
wagons, and "I remember that morn, Jack the Ripper
was born!" In the dream sequence illustrating
the incident, a woman in a bed is attacked by a
man in a top hat...as I said the only time the
actual Kelly killing is shown.
Yet the aftermath has been handled more graphically. In the 1988 television two part film
with Michael Caine as Abberlene, when Kelly's
body is discovered there is a brief, hellish
moment, where you glimpse what was seen. Later
Caine is visiting Dr. Gull, and shows him one of
the actual photos of Mary's body (which the
camera shows the audience). Yet it is oddly less
effective than a scene in the 1960 A STUDY IN
TERROR, where the actor playing Lestrade is seen
descending a staircase from Mary's room (there are
numerous errors in this fictional account)looking
glassy eyed, and commenting on the horrible scene
he has seen to Holmes (John Neville).
Billy Wilder nearly included a Jack the Ripper
scene in his film, THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK
HOLMES, but cut it. Holmes, in the film, has
fallen in love with a German spy, and he has just
learned she was executed by the secret service
of Japan which had caught her. He is quite
distraught. Then Lestrade comes in, explaining
that there are these unsolved killings in the
East End of London, by some fellow called Jack
the Ripper, and they need Holmes's help in solving them. Holmes begs off the case!! Thereby
we understand why the case was never solved.
One can go on a long time like this. I will conclude with one other bizaare reference. In
SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, Tom Hanks is trying to go
away for the weekend with his current date, but
his son does not want him to date her, and wants
Hanks to meet a nice sounding pen pal (Meg Ryan)
across country in New York City instead. They
have an argument, in which Hanks basically admits
his sexual frustration, and that he wants to date
the current lady for this reason. In the course
of this argument the subject of how many woman
Hanks had sex with before he married his late
wife comes up, and he says "It was six...no seven,
Mary Kelly!" I have often wondered if the screen-writers were having a bit of black humor there, and if Hanks knew what he was actually saying.
Jeff |
Author: Monty
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Jeff,
There was a film over here in UK a few years ago where a person was contemplating murder and was visited by the ghosts of famous murderers like Crippen and of course the self proclaimed "Daddy of them all" Jack.
Jack was played by Sir John Mills and the actual name of JtR used in this short film I forget but I do remember Jack the Ripper being exceedingly p**sed off that no one has guessed his true identity.
I cant remember the name of it but I shall do some investigating. I would be grateful if anyone out there could help.
Sorry if this is going off the thread.
Monty
|
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Monty, the film that you are thinking of is called Deadly Advice (1993), in which Sir John Mills plays Jack the Ripper who's real identity is a barber named Alfred Whicker. He tells us that the closest the police ever got to him was the time he cut Inspector Abberline's hair.
Wolf. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 10:43 pm | | Wolf and Monty - I will have to try to catch
Deadly Advice on television or (if I find it)
on video.
I forgot to mention Peter O'Toole's appearance
as Jack in THE RULING CLASS (1972) wherein a mad
aristocrat is cured of believing he is Jesus, only
to get the opposite number. O'Toole's physical
appearance dressed in late 19th Century clothes
(wearing a "Muller cut-down" hat, thus linking
Jack with another Victorian killer)makes me think
of Montague Druitt for some reason - probably
as the outfit is middle class or something of that
nature.
In one of Arnold Schwartzenegger's recent films,
Jack is one of several figures from Hell recruited
by Satan to battle Arnold. Can't remember the
film's title though.
Jeff |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 01:11 am | | Just saw From Hell. Thought it was excellant. The British actors were superb. Johnny Depp did a good job but is a curious choice for the lead. Must be a reason for that. The Godley actor did some good work. Ian Holm and the actor who played Warren were near perfection. The character actors in the supporting cast were excellant. The grinding poverty and life on the street came through loud and clear. The movie focused on the humanity of the victims and their daily struggle to survive.
I don't think much of the Royal Conspiracy theory but the movie made as plausible a case as can be made. I still think it is a stretch. The loud clatter of the carriage was very prominant. How could a carriage possibly be involved in the near vicinity of 5 murders and not be noticed by somebody? If the Diemschutz pony cart could be heard coming down the street from some distance, how much more so a carriage drawn by two horses!
If an expensive carriage was touring the Whitechapel area it must surely draw attention. If the victims were cut inside the carriage what a mess to clean up each time. If the carriage would stop to dump the body so the good doctor could finish surgery how obvious is that? And why make a spectacle of the victims? Would that not cause the other intended victims to flee or scatter, making them that much harder to track down and eliminate?
This was by no means a documentary. Queen Victoria is portrayed as the heavy in this movie. I didn't notice a disclaimer that might be useful for the uninformed since the movie does generate a strong emotional response. In fairness to Queen Victoria and the Royal family as well as historical accuracy and intellectual honesty a disclaimer would be appropriate. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 08:32 am | | Hi, Robeer:
A Disclaimer??? Are you trying to scare away business? |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 10:25 am | | Wolf,
You are a star Sir.
This has probably been mentioned before but does anyone know when FROM HELL is coming out here in England?
Monty
|
Author: Scott Weidman
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 03:54 pm | | Greetings all,
I saw the film last night and was not a bit impressed. In fact, I found the film to be quite flat and unbearably monotonous. It just about put me, Mr. Insomnia, to sleep. And never mind the fact versus fiction argument, the film just plain sucked.
Extremely disappointed.
Scott |
Author: Dan Fitzgerald
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 04:30 pm | | Hello,
One funny Ripper reference in film that I had not seen mentioned here was in the Rob Reiner
comedy, the psuedo-rock-documentary "This is Spinal Tap". When the fake rock-band Spinal Tap is facing a downturn, they reminisce about a rock musical that they were going to stage based upon the life of Jack the Ripper. They were going to call it "Saucy Jack", and we get to hear some of the lyrics in the movie: "You're a naughty one, Saucy Jack. You're a haughty one, Saucy Jack." Anyway, thought that this obscure reference was funny.
Barron |
Author: Kandy Kane
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 06:07 pm | | | so i write this in hope that there are others who agree in my decision that the movie with Heather graham and Johnny Depp just called "From Hell" just abosoutley down played all the signaficence of the whole "jack the Ripper story" and it also totally down played the book. i was really exctited about this movie and i was soooooo dissappointed. I was expecting much more.........what do you think.....give me and email......thx........ |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 08:11 pm | | Caught a matinee of From Hell this afternoon... surprise, surprise, I liked it. Though I have a sneaking suspicion that anyone who doesn't know a lick about Freemasons or Victorian London would probably be either very bored or very confused (possibly both). It did a fair job of covering the Royal Conspiracy theory (which in my opinion never carries over to the screen very easily) and the cinematography was certainly worth my five-fifty. The Whitechapel recreation was spectacular, though I wonder why they bothered to spend so much energy faithfully recreating the haunts of East London and then didn't seem to have any qualms over getting the basic facts right on the victims' wounds or the chronology of the Ripper letters. Oh well...
If you go in expecting just a fun flick and some cool camera shots, you won't be disappointed. One of the better Rip-flicks, overall. |
Author: Judith Stock
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 08:45 pm | | Since I saw FROM HELL with Stephen, Ally, and my husband today, SPR already knows what I'll say here. I liked it, too, and was prepared to rip it apart (NO PUN INTENDED!!). Let's face it, guys, this is based on a COMIC BOOK SERIES...NOT the A-Z or Mr Rumbelow's book. Prepare to suspend belief all ye who enter, and enjoy it for what it is...a movie which does not purport to be fact. But DAMNIT, I'm tired of Abberline being portrayed as a drunken loser, or a dope smoking clairvoyant......
I DID have a good time, though...thanks for coming over, Stephen and Ally; it was a great afternoon.
Judy |
Author: Bruce R Tucker
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 10:49 pm | | I also saw "From Hell" today,and found it to be an entertaining movie,which is all I expected it to be!
While it wasn't great on accuracy,I found it to be a well done tale. I thought the scenery,the costumes,the whole look of Whitechapel was terrific(at least the way I've always envisioned it to be).
It's not the complete JTR movie but it will do nicely until someone solves the case and they make a movie about the REAL "Jack the Ripper".
Anyway,that's this rookie Ripper fans two cents worth!--Best--Bruce |
Author: Stacey Bond
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 12:43 am | | | As a non-Ripperologist, I do want to say that the movie was great (I do have a history degree, so I am well aware of a few inaccuracies). Additionally, if it was not for the movie, I would have never found this GREAT website (it really is fantastic!). And I have read some of these discussions, so I do know the whole royal/freemason conspiracy is quite probably not the real source of Jack the Ripper, however, we will ever really know? |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 10:29 am | | Hi all,
Well, I guess I'm going to have to chime in here. Yesterday, I wrote the following parenthetical comment in a post on the Diary board, after seeing the film.
"Unlike so many others, I didn't like it at all. Not because of its silly history, but as a film. Much of the dialogue could have been written by a high-school kid, there were enough spoken and visual clichés to fill a book, not a single character was developed beyond cartoon sketch level, the melodrama wasn't particularly well-presented or suspenseful, the relationships between the characters were established with cheap running gags the way they do on TV, the violence was, it seemed to me, surprisingly bland and unaffective for the topic, the music was clichéd and heavy-handed and, worst of all, it was dreadfully boring. It took an interesting and naturally suspenseful and intriguing moment in history and made it simply dull. That is a serious crime in filmmaking. Besides, not one character ever said anything of any real interest to any other character in the entire film. The script was the simplistic stuff of television movies of the week. Most of the performances were stilted and showed no dramatic range whatsoever, neither they nor the events nor the editing held my interest for a moment. It was a thin and obvious and formulaic and mundane piece of filmmaking, I thought. And then there's the history... How did Catherine Eddowes lose her kidney while she was still alive anyway?"
And two days later, I still think the film was horrible. The characters lacked any development at all that made me care even one little whit about them. The writing was amateurish and the little devices used to define them (quoting Shakespeare, for instance) were hackneyed and alienating. The last line (the quote from Hamlet) was embarrassing -- the stuff of high-school drama writing courses.
The cinematography I thought was often completely clichéd (the top hat shadow on the wall or the overdone little surreal drifts into the opium visions, for instance). It had no subtlety or suspense or originality about it whatsoever.
And there was no humanity anywhere to be found. And that is a tragedy.
Here's a final thought.
The next night, I went to see David Lynch's Mulholland Drive. It was a film made the way I think a Ripper film could and should be made. It was suspenseful without being easy. It was original and unpredictable and kept the viewer in a genuine state of uncertainty but also developed real characters, even briefly, whom you could care about. People said interesting and meaningful things to each other sometimes. There was no desire to preach or to expose, but only a desire to ask questions, to create interest, and to create powerful suspense and genuine, unsolvable mystery. And at the end there was no simple closure or elementary level solution. Still you left feeling like you had seen an experience that was in some way meaningful, not the high-school drama production that I saw the night before.
This case is a singularly intriguing moment in history with fascinating characters, with sex, with violence, with lies and deceit and uncertainty and suspense. It could make for an interesting film. This year, it didn't.
That's my two coins (but please, not on my eyes -- it wasn't touching -- it was just predictable and silly).
--John |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 10:51 am | | I went expecting to see a horror film, not a historical documentary and so I was not that disappointed. I enjoyed the Whitechapel scenes, rolled my eyes and snickered over the worst of the historical inaccuracies and was at least thankful that they didn't all live happily ever after in the end. Basically, I thought it was pretty decent for the most part. I mean..Johnny in a bath...what more could a person ask for?? Even though those I attended with did NOT understand why that really was the pivotal scene in the whole movie...really these people have no appreciation for cinematography.
Ally |
Author: Judith Stock
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 01:07 pm | | Dear Ally,
Depends on WHAT the cinematographer is aiming at, don't you think??? I STILL don't get the Depp thing, but then that's why we have choices, right?
You and I thought it was interesting that poor Cath lost her kidney BEFORE she died.....now there's a good trick!! You do have to appreciate the art of that..and I bet she never knew it was gone, either.
And for John, this is a movie based on a COMIC BOOK, fer gawd's sake......at least allow the poor Hughes's that concession. If anyone goes to see FROM HELL looking for truth, or anything more than a reprise of the Campbell/Moore treatment, please stay home and save your money. If you want to see some very interesting sets and some pretty good supporting actors, then by all means go and enjoy. The peripheral characters who never speak, the sets (except for a major exception or two), and the atmosphere alone are worth the trip. In a couple of instances, I felt like I was looking at the London photos, or the Dore drawings. Some of the photography is positively eerie, and the street scenes are certainly atmospheric enough for any aficionado.
Relax and enjoy.....truth, it isn't; a good watch it is.
J |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 05:16 pm | | Hi, J:
A good watch... Are you talking about Albert Johnson's watch? 
C |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 05:30 pm | | Jack the Ripper yarn tops U.S. box office
By Dean Goodman
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Jack the Ripper has made a killing at the North American box office over, while dramas starring Drew Barrymore and Robert Redford have opened poorly, according to studio estimates.
"From Hell," starring Johnny Depp as an opium-addicted Scotland Yard detective on the trail of the celebrated Victorian serial killer, opened at No. 1 with $11.6 million in ticket sales for the three days beginning Friday.
The film, directed by Allen and Albert Hughes ("Menace II Society") ended the two-week reign of the Denzel Washington rogue-cop drama "Training Day," which slipped to No. 3 with $9.5 million.
In between was Barrymore's semi-factual drama "Riding in Cars With Boys" with $10.8 million. The other new entry in the top 10 belonged to Redford's prison saga "The Last Castle," which opened at No. 5 with $7.1 million.
With anthrax anxiety hurting sales last weekend, business this round was still subdued. The top 12 films grossed about $74.5 million, down 4.1 percent from last weekend, but up 3.7 percent from the year-ago period, when "Meet the Parents" was tops for a third weekend with $16 million.
New releases next weekend include the Snoop Dogg vehicle "Bones" (a Wednesday bow), the horror film "Thirteen Ghosts," the romantic comedy "On The Line" and the sci-fi drama
"From Hell" is well positioned to capture moviegoers looking for Halloween thrills in coming weeks, said Bruce Snyder, president of distribution at Twentieth Century Fox, which released the film.
The film "looked hip, looked cool," he said, noting that 53 percent of the audience for the R-rated movie was under 25. In addition to Depp, it stars Heather Graham as a hooker and Scottish actor Robbie Coltrane as Depp's sidekick. Fox is a unit of Fox Entertainment Group Inc. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 05:39 pm | | From the latest issue of The New Yorker, October 22, 2001, "Goings On About Town" section. Illustration by Edwin Fotheringham.
 |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 05:57 pm | | Hi Judith,
If you look back at my initial reaction again, you'll see that none of my objections (other than the little joke about the kidney) have anything to do with the truth or with the history.
I could care less if the film was accurate.
My objections all had to do with the quality of the filmmaking and the quality of the writing. The dialogue was amateurish and shallow, there was no serious character development of any sort and not a single interesting or dramatic line found its way into the script. The cinematography, like the writing, was clichéd and predictable. The editing worked to make the film even duller than the high-school script was doomed to make it. The music was also wrought with cliché. The characters were stick figures and the acting was lackluster. Not even the violence had any real effect for me. It was surprisingly banal.
Depp sleepwalked his way through the movie, not only because he played an opium addict, but because he barely had an interesting word to utter. Heather Graham was completely unremarkable.
And the hackneyed devices used to establish character were the stuff of TV dramas on Lifetime network.
It was a shallow and mundane and predictable and especially ordinary piece of filmmaking -- all history aside. For me, it wasn't a good watch, it was a tedious and amateurish and undeveloped and silly watch. (Even the much praised sets, I thought, looked a bit Disneyfide at times -- mostly due to lighting misjudgments.)
I didn't expect the truth. But I would have liked some drama.
--John
PS: To watch the Hughes Brothers' cameras and editing and especially their lighting set-ups one day and David Lynch's the next is to see the difference between filmmaking by formula and cliché and filmmaking with artistry and imagination. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 10:26 pm | | I basically agree with John's review. I thought the dialogue and screenplay were cheesy. I was, however, intrigued by the surrealistic scene where Mary Kelly's fireplace explodes in a fireball, transporting Dr. Gull (in his mind) to the auditorium floor of the masonic hall where fellow masons are in applause in front of her dissected body. That bit of cinematography was the best part of the movie, IMHO.
But who thought up the bits where Liz Stride is first kissing Marry Kelly, then later a French prostitute? Pretty weird, but then again, it's Hollywood. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 12:42 am | | I saw it. I didn't like it.
P.S. Liz wasn't kissing Mary Kelly earlier on. She was kissing Kate Eddowes, who resisted her advances. Despite a $50,000,000 budget, why did I keep expecting Michael Caine to walk on screen? And you have to love that it took 6 victims to make a 5-pointed star. Ha ha. Or that Depp pronounced his character's name two different ways. I could go on, but I'll save it for my review in NewsStead. |
|
|
|
|
