Author: Kathleen A. Carbone
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 08:10 am |        |
| Should have been called "From Purgatory" Thats where you'll feel you are for two hours during this plodding preposterous drivel. Even the remarkable Ian Holm could not save this from its historical inaccuracies and nonsense. Unfortunately many people will think its fact. (Where do they get off "quoting" Jack the Ripper at the opening of the film with that "I gave birth to the twentieth century" line?) |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 10:40 am | |
It is only a movie.
Rich |
Author: TS Simmons
Tuesday, 19 February 2002 - 11:05 pm | |
| I agree! The reason this case is filled with inaccuracy, and hokey mythology is ridiculous, slanderous "movies" like this. Why doesnt anyone make a FACTUAL film about the ripper! The Case is fascinating without all of the outlandish theories! |
Author: P. Severin
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 03:46 am | |
Unfortunately, "crap" sells. Factual WOULD be nice, but Hollywood can't handle the risk of it being a bomb. You would think after all the remakes of Titanic and Pearl Harbor that they would at least TRY once to get it right. The risk though is that the majority of people will have nothing but apathy about whores getting what they had coming. How ignorant is THAT?
So what we can look forward to is Patricia Cornwell selling Hollywood Sickert running through the streets with his paint brush and chain saw.
Powell |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 20 February 2002 - 05:20 pm | |
| No matter what we think hollywood or anybody else could produce a movie that would satisfy us, because we are adamant regarding our suspect. As I said before some time back, I liked Laird Cregar's performance in'The Lodger'. No matter who you think JTR is he would have had to have that kind of intent-almost a religious intent-to his pursuit to murder.Hollywood could care less who JTR might have been as long as he made it gory and somebody in the film could grunt and groan in a sexual scene. Surely you don't go to the movies for facts or the interpretation of facts. |
Author: P. Severin
Thursday, 21 February 2002 - 03:47 am | |
Good point.
When looking for fact in movies, might we suggest having the cartoon trailers brought back. Oh! God No! That would take away from the 30 minutes of MOVIE TRAILERS. What was I thinking? |
Author: Stephen Hills
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 04:05 pm | |
Am I the only one who enjoyed the film?
Of course it wasn't accurate and I can't believe anyone will believe that Abberline was a drug addict psychic. And as for the final victim..... But as a nonsense thriller - admitedly cashing in on JTR - it was as good as most that come out of hollywood.
Cromo |
Author: TS Simmons
Saturday, 23 February 2002 - 08:22 pm | |
Nah, It wasn't even a good thriller. Why portray Abberline as an addict, and Gull as a sadistic killer when neither man was? The murders themselves, and the Victorian London setting could possibly make a VERY entertaining and interesting film. There also has NEVER been a legitimate documentary made about the Ripper. I don't understand this. There have been American Justice episodes made about OJ Simpson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc. etc...but no full length on the Ripper, unless you count A&E's biography, which should have been two hours, and The History Channel, which was basically the same story. Secrets of the Unknown docu, was rubbish,
as was the stupid documentary about Stephen Knight's "theory". |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 08:37 am | |
Hi All,
I somewhat enjoyed 'From Hell'. I was most GREVIOUSLY disappointed from the idea that supposed RIPPEROLOGISTS helped them to get their facts right. Yet they end up messing up the main characters, as well as the mutilations, and crime scenes. I was hoping it to be better fact laiden(even though it was going with the Masonic/Royal Conspiracy idea.) Also the reason they did Abberline that way, is that they didn't have the time to put Lees into the story, as well as many other characters that were in the original Graphic Novel.(Even if you aren't into the Masonic/Royal Conspiracy theory, I do recommend it to all Ripper readers, it is Highly entertaining!) But that's Hollywood for you, change what they want in hopes of more entertainment factor, as well as cut it all down to keep the budget cheap!
After all according to Hollywood Producers, if you made a movie about a faceless killer terrorizing the streets of some, as some of them put it, 'OLD TOWN', then who's gonna want to see it? After all, we need more Sex and Violence to get people in the seats, right?
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 24 February 2002 - 09:06 am | |
Chris,
In an earlier post Stuart Evans, one of the advisors on the film, told me that there were many points (especially the way Abberline was portraied) he argued with the makers over.
He said that he was ignored and there was very little he could do about it. After all it was their 'baby'.
Your last sentence sums it up..thats showbiz buddy.
Monty
 |
