Author: Lisa Muir
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 11:01 pm |        |
Yes, Brad, my expectations for a factual drama were, indeed, very low. I chose to view the film as pure entertainment. Unfortunately, I found it lacking in that area as well (Although, I will admit I didn't mind watching Johnny Depp for a couple of hours!)
I didn't hate "From Hell", but I wouldn't reccomend it either. |
Author: Robert House
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 10:02 am | |
I would have also forgiven the historical innacuracies and just "gone along for the ride", so to speak. But aside from everything else, it was just a bad movie...boring, bad script, bad acting, no drama or suspense, etc. I would think that to make a good Jack the Ripper movie, the director would have to have a touch of subtlety. This movie was basically little more than an excuse to have some gory scenes and the ultra-hip Johnny Depp drinking Absinthe scenes. In addition, the editing was terrible. It reminded me of MTV, or say Natural Born Killers, which is another terrible movie. Just bad all around.
Rob |
Author: Tom Thacker
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 10:44 am | |
| One thing the movie does well is show just how silly and weak the Royal/Freemason theory really is. Otherwise, its a bad film. ;) BTW, did anyone else notice that the 5 women wore the same outfits the whole time, even in the flashback to Albert's and Annie's wedding? And I still couldn't tell who was who. |
Author: Jason Jones
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 03:53 pm | |
It seems that the upsurge in interest caused by "From Hell" is being noticed in Spitalfields. Check out this BBC news story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1623000/1623386.stm
J |
Author: molly donlon
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 05:40 pm | |
| i have given it some additional thought and have decided that the best way to enjoy this movie is with a little tap on the frontal lobe, a little tap on the left, a little tap on the right and a big bag of popcorn. moll |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 06:56 pm | |
The trailer for ' From Hell ' has been shown on British TV tonight ( 22nd January 2002 ) , the film premieres in Britain on 8th February.
I can't remember exactly how the voiceover goes , but it goes something like ' Do you know fear ? Do you know danger ? You don't know JACK ! '
Spooky stuff , looks to be good eye-candy at least.
Simon  |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 12:13 am | |
Hi, all:
As Simon Owen noted, the British release of "From Hell" will occur today, Friday, 8 February. In Thursday's Financial Times there appears what I believe is a very fair assessment of the movie, which I endorse from my viewing of the movie in the United States in the Fall:
Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
The Hughes brothers' Jack the Ripper film loses then finds itself in the labyrinths of the British class system, says Nigel Andrews
Jack the Ripper stretches out a long leg across the 20th century, a bestriding myth that seems to grow more Colossus-like with each decade. Headline horror gives way over time to atavistic awe, and also to a fetishing fascination with the unspeakable. Alan Moore wrote his devoutly researched graphic novel From Hell in 1999. Now Allen and Albert Hughes, funky American siblings who gave us Menace II Society, offer the film of the picture-book of the legend of the true story.
Two films, if we are honest. Half of From Hell is costume hokum worthy of Hammer. "Allo dahlin'" streetwalkers cosy up to sinister frock-coated gents amid backlot sets. Built at Prague's Barrandov studios, every 1880s east London housefront looks the same: sooty fake-brick façades flatly lit by Peter Deming, who as a Lynch lenser (Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive should know better how to conjure earthly Hells. The debit ledger also includes another wheel-me-on-and-wind-me-up performance from Robbie Coltrane, fast becoming the dead-zone Orson Welles of British cinema, and the accent of Inspector Johnny Depp, a graduate of the Dick Van Dyke School of American Cockney.
From Hell's better self manifests itself, sporadically but intriguingly, as a companion piece to Gosford Park, or a freak poetic echo of it: another movie in which an American sensibility finds tell-tale drama-satire in Britain's class labyrinths. Where Altman overdid the judgmentalism, condemning the toffs on sight, the Hugheses allow two histrionic Ians to give the supersubtle classes in patrician corruption.
Holm and Richardson, respectively, playing Queen Victoria's doctor and top freemason Sir Charles Warren, entwine themselves in guilt while giving off silken gleams of humour, malice, wit and mordant wisdom. Holm's performance, especially, contains an entire world of defiant timor mortis, with all the light, dark and in-betweening missing in both Deming's photography and the main performances.
Those shortfalls in imagery and imagination prevent From Hell from reaching the heart of the Ripper myth, the notion of a united city, reign, and even empire slashed by a scandal that exposed humanity in all its mean and mortal working parts. Visually the Hugheses find a language sufficient to the story only in dream sequences, in the scurrying flicker-montages of Depp's opium reveries where for once the imported Bow Bell accents, Gothic Rep acting and build-me-a-slum Lego sets are transcended by real sense of queasy, kinetic nightmare. |
Author: molly donlon
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 03:47 pm | |
| harumph!harumph! |
Author: stephen stanley
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 05:42 am | |
| Similiar review in Daily Mail.....& Depp looks like a shop clerk!! |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 09 February 2002 - 04:48 pm | |
Hi, all:
Review from the BBC: From Hell leaves you cold
Chris |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 09:33 am | |
I went to see the film last night,
I would share my views with you all but my Mum always said "if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all"
So I won't
Monty
 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 10 February 2002 - 06:01 pm | |
| Monty, Went and saw the film today and had a good laugh about it. It was a comedy I take take it.Abberline decided to gain entry into a special branch copper's office to obtain information on the Cleveland Street scandel.Sgt Godley waited outside the building to keep watch. A coach then pulled up outside the building and the special branch officer in question got out.Godley then decided to warn Abberline that it was "coming on top".Did he blow twice on his whistle to warn Abberline ? No he did not.Did he ring the office in question and let the phone ring twice to warn Abberline? No he did not.He did the unexpected by putting a match to a bloody big barrel containing gunpowder and rolling it downhill towards the special branch building. By the time the barrel reached the courtyard it was ablaze and just as it reached the front door it exploded. As it did so Abberline walked out of the front door of the building!!!!! So why set fire to the barrel to warn Abberline to start with? We did not get to see Abberline and Godley rolling the bloody big barrel down the road on their way to the special branch building which would have been rather jolly to watch. Abberline in fact was working on the Cleveland Street scandal and as such he would have had all the available information at his disposal without going to such crazy lengths to obtain it.Those critics who thought the film was bloodthirsty and gory must have led something of a sheltered life working in Mothercare. 'Murder by Decree' was a far better film in my opinion.I thought the make up of Merrick was very well done that did impress me.When I was researching at the London Hospital I got to see quite a bit on the life of Merrick including a caste of his head and many other related artefacts including photos of him.I think I will give 'From Hell" 2 out of ten.For the record I thought the accent of Mr Depp as a Londoner was poor he would have been better off by not trying.The acting by the person playing Mary Kelly I thought was very poor. Abberline should have nicked her for impersonating an actress.It is beyond me why the film producers bother to go to the trouble of getting advisers for such films.Unless of course all of the untruths, mistakes,and suchlike are the work of such advisers. I did not get to watch the credits so I dont know who advised on this one.Talk about money for old rope. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:08 am | |
Hi Ivor,
Imagine you had been invited to advise for 'From Hell' and subsequently found that none, or precious little, of your advice had been heeded.
Would you care if people made comments afterwards like: 'Unless of course all of the untruths, mistakes, and suchlike are the work of such advisers. I did not get to watch the credits so I dont know who advised on this one. Talk about money for old rope'?
No, and I don't suppose the advisers care either. Nothing much they could do about it anyway.
Love,
Caz
PS I believe the advisers managed to steer them away from putting actors in T-shirts with 'Whitechapel Vigilance Committee 1888' on the front though.  |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 11:15 am | |
Hi, Ivor and Caz:
As I recall, the advisors listed in the credits for the film were Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner. As you know, these two gentlemen are among the top authorities in the field. We are dealing here with Hollywood, baby, as Austin Powers would say, and whatever advice the experts may have given was not necessarily heeded by the filmmakers. I personally was impressed by the verisimilitude that was given to Whitechapel and possibly Evans and Skinner's advice is most seen in the reality recreated though not in some of the details of the murders, e.g., the grapes allegedly found with each victim, a detail which is straight out of the From Hell graphic novel by Moore and Campbell on which the film is loosely based.
I thought overall that the movie was a blown opportunity to make a decent film on the crimes. Depp just about sleepwalked through the film (dreaming opium-induced dreams?), collecting his paycheck and investing little of himself in the portrayal of Abberline. The ending is garishly romanticized to the point of being just plain ridiculous. I agree with you, Ivor, that the film deserves a rating of 4 out of 10.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 05:15 pm | |
| Caroline, Little do you know me.If I had been called on to advise on the film "From Hell" I would have either been paid off before the end of the film, or thrown off the set screaming abuse on the way out. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 05:33 pm | |
| Hi Chris, I just dropped it down to 3 out of ten!!! Sometimes I dont know why they bother having advisers. Just a couple of ripper books with a few pictures in would suffice Hollywood.I agree with what you said. It was the same with Titanic a good chance lost there. They go and mess it all up with a story that never happened and by having a spurned lover running amok on the ship shooting at everything in sight. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 07:31 pm | |
Ivor,
I seem to be chasing you around the boards. The reasons for the advisers on a film such as this are varied but do not include the power to rewrite the script.
I told the Hughes brothers just what I thought of the theory they had chosen but it was not within our power to alter that. Indeed, the scriptwriter, Rafael Yglesias, wrote in the front of my copy of the script, "For Stewart - with apologies to the true facts & thanks for your help."
When a film company buy the rights to make a movie from a book, that is what they do. In this case they bought the rights to the graphic novel From Hell written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Eddie Campbell. That is what they paid for and that is what the movie is based on. We were able to assist with graphic images to assist with the production and also took the directors and members of the cast around the murder sites for them to get a 'feel' for the area and how the women lived. In fact they went to quite a lot of trouble on certain aspects of detail.
The movie, as with most Hollywood movies, is not a sober retelling of the facts. This would be pretty gruesome and probably boring. It is intended to be pure entertainment and escapism. Now, I can understand why the historians and purists amongst us disagree with this, but there is little we can do about it. The movie had mixed reviews and there were some good ones. Also I have spoken to several people who enjoyed the movie. This is a personal thing and very much amounts to what is one man's meat is another man's poison.
Stewart |
Author: Johnno
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 02:05 am | |
From Hell premiered in Australia last night. I went and saw it at the open air cinema in Sydney, which runs on Sydney Harbour at this time of year. Full house, although I couldn't help but wonder how many people in the audience actually have an interest in the case.
There'll no doubt be a new generation of Gullible enthusiasts as a result. :-)
On so many occasions during the film was it oh so tempting to shout an emphatic "bull...." for all to hear. But I controlled myself, sort of.
The movie is yet another case of a fictitious story with some facts on the side.
The gloomy, slummy scenery and portrayal of the prostitutes was well done (although Heather Graham was far too attractive to be a common whore), but, royal conspiracy theory notwithstanding, I was frankly astounded that some of the basic details were botched rather spectacularly, and that Abberline's "investigation" and knowledge base was so comprehensive for so little apparent work. He spent more time getting high than pounding the pavement.
Quite interesting was the decision by Kelly's cronies to blackmail the government, well and truly after Saucy Jacky had already decommissioned three prostitutes. I wonder what Stephen Knight would have thought of the film...
The brief snogfest between Kelly and Abberline should have been left on the editing room floor.
And that lesbian carry-on between two of the harlots? What the?!
However, the scene in which one of Abberline's captors had his head pounded by the spokes in the wheel of a coach after being "Steven Seagaled" by Abberline, was worth the $16 ticket price.
But, Hollywood being what it is, it would be naive to expect much compliance with reality. A movie with an insignificant, unknown, nobody murdering a bunch of harlots who probably weren't on a first name basis with each other wouldn't sell (m)any tickets, especially if we never got to find out who the miscreant was.
It's great that Stewart and Keith were able to provide consultancy, but it's to be understood that you can lead a horse to water... |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 08:05 am | |
Stewart,
Out of curiosity, where there any points in the film that you strongly disagreed with ??
and where either overruled or agreed with ??
If so , name them ??
Monty
|
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 09:30 am | |
There were many things I did not agree with in the script, not least of all the depiction of Abberline as a drug addict and psychic. As I said, we had no powers with regard to altering the basic story-line.
Stewart |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 03:01 pm | |
| I can assure you guys that Abberline as a drug addict and psychic has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Alan Moore's fine graphic novel ! |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 05:08 pm | |
If Messrs. Evans and Skinner had been allowed to change the script, I'm sure they would have at least insisted that the scene wherein Abberline denounces the Lusk letter as a hoax be held off until after the Kate Eddowes character had been done in. As it was I'm sure my fellow moviegoers were wondering what kind of sicko found this scene so hysterically funny.
AAA88 |
Author: TS Simmons
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 06:38 pm | |
| There has NEVER been a legitimate film made of the Jack The Ripper Case, probably the most famous unsolved murder case in history. WHY???? I personally would love to see an authentic account of the Whitechapel murders. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 11:11 pm | |
Well, TS Simmons, you are lucky, an authentic account (meant only as "the true story", if this is what you mean) of the not so simple truth about the Whitechapel murders is going to be published in the next few months.
Unless they kill the author before, of course.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:07 am | |
Stewart,
I must admit, that was my main gripe.
I can understand the other liberties because, as you stated, it is based on a fictional novel which is, in turn, based loosely on the murders.
I accept that,
But to slight Abberline that way is an outrage. To me it was a lack of respect.
But I could say that about Dr Gull and the Royals who may have nothing to do with this crime yet, thanks to the film, will be shown as murderers.
Monty |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 08:56 am | |
Hi Jesse,
I'm sorry that your fellow moviegoers were wondering what kind of sicko found the scene so hysterically funny wherein Abberline denounces the Lusk letter as a hoax.
This moviegoer managed to doze off and miss the Lusk letter scene altogether. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 10:15 am | |
| The Hughes brothers were interviewed on the Inde Cable Channel recently. One of the brothers said that the film's technical advisers warned them that Ripper experts would be extremely critical of the plot. The brother went on to explain that they got the idea for making the film from an old "In Search Of", the television series from (I believe) the mid 70's. The JtR episode featured the story of Dr. Thomas Stowell. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 11:04 am | |
Hi, Kevin:
Albert Hughes visited the old Casebook chat room on a number of occasions before shooting began in Prague and he well knew that the Royal conspiracy theory that he was pursuing was not flavor of the month with those knowledgable about the case!!! We all told him that the story was ridiculous.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 04:52 pm | |
Graz-
An authentic account of the murders? "Jack lo Squartatore", by graziano?
With a foreword by ED Carter, perhaps?
I can't wait! Can I pre-order my copy now?
AAA88
PS- Stay away from the windows. And Happy Birthday to Caz. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 06:32 pm | |
Dear Anyone
Can anyone tell me where I can get a complete cast list for the film?
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jack Traisson
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 07:09 pm | |
Hi Bob,
Here you go:
http://us.imdb.com/Credits?0120681
Cheers,
John |
Author: TS Simmons
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 05:45 pm | |
The film was SO inaccurate (apart from the sets)
It's a disgrace that people make films like this...wasn't even that entertaining. Worse, it was very slanderous to people who actually existed and had NOTHING to do with the murders.
Poor William Gull and his family. The Hughes' should be ashamed. Somebody make an AUTHENTIC film about these murders. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 06:07 pm | |
| I have yet to see this new JtR film, I'm looking forward to it, but it would be a much bigger treat if it was the authentic story sticking to what facts are available and not somebodys idea of who Jack the Ripper was,-- truth IS stranger than fiction. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Thursday, 14 February 2002 - 07:47 pm | |
I thought I would just add my opinion to those expressed about the film.
We are all aware that the plot was complete fiction. But I must admit that I thought it was a good film without being historically accurate.
And now some people are going to think I really am crazy, but I thought the accents of both Johnny Depp and Heather Graham were not that bad!
As someone who spent 29 years living in Dagenham, very much East End London, I can honestly say that I knew numerous Dick Van Dyke sounding people in my old home town. To me, apart from a couple of times when Depp and Graham went a bit too far cockney, mostly I thought they made a pretty good attempt without being over the top.
Frankly, I would have changed the victims around and made thin looking Katrin Cartlidge, who was Chapman, play Elizabeth Stride. I would have made blue eyed Lesley Sharp, who was Eddowes, play Annie Chapman. And Susan Lynch, who was Stride, and is in fact Irish, would have been my Mary Jane.
And where they got that lesbian stuff for Stride with 'Nichole' the French girl from the car adverts I don't know? And could Abberline be so stupid that after the first couple of murders he didn't think that only these five women were being picked on by the killer?
It's only when you see the Royal conspiracy thoery on film does it clearly look so barmy!
And I thought the film by straying so far from Knight's book actually did the conspiracy theory little, if any good, whatsoever. After all, Annie Crook was suddenly a Whitechapel prostitute, and who was the police guy called 'Kidney?'
To me, the best part of the film was the clever bit with Gull in Millers Court.
And one of the funniest was the bit where Eddowes kidney was sent to the news agency before her death. Kate Eddowes, Victorian organ donor!
Wot a great gal! As Johnny would say.
I've also never walked out of a cinema before with everyone completely silent! |
Author: Stephen McCann
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:53 pm | |
| From Hell ? Too right, the makers should go to hell! |
Author: Stephen McCann
Friday, 15 February 2002 - 07:56 pm | |
| Neal Shelden, I liked your words, but a small point,....when organs are donated they are always taken from living people.....organs from the dead are useless as transplants. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 07:56 am | |
Dear Mr Traisson,
Many thanks for your help regards the cast list. A friend of mine appeared in the film (much to my surprise) and I wanted to see what part he played.
Apparently he can claim to be one of the few people to butt Johhny Depp!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 08:06 am | |
Who was Constable Withers in the reality ?
Thank you. |
Author: Neal Shelden
Saturday, 16 February 2002 - 12:28 pm | |
Stephen,
What I actually meant by my little joke was that as we all know the Lusk letter and kidney alleged to belong to Eddowes was sent after her death!!!
But in the film the letter and kidney was received while Eddowes was still sitting in the pub getting legless!
I promise never to joke again! |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 17 February 2002 - 06:20 am | |
| I really must get around to seeing the film ! |
