We just got home from seeing the movie From Hell, a Jack-the-Ripper theme movie. Very good photography, good soundtrack played at too loud a volume (what else is new?), lots of blood and gore. Johnny Depp is pretty good, well he’s always great to look at, even as an opium addict, laudanum-laced absinthe-drinking police inspector with ESP.
The movie is dark, not only in its themes but in its colours. Everything takes place at night, except a few scenes that take place at twilight so that you see streets, buildings, vegetation and people, but totally devoid of colour. There is, to be exact, only one brief sunlit scene of a few seconds.
Not really a great suspense film, not a real horror movie either. I don’t know why, the period is different and everything, yet there is something about this movie that reminded me of Eyes Wide Shut. It is also reminiscent of the far superior 1979 James Mason movie, Murder by Decree. The latter is a pretty good movie to rent in a video store for Hallowe’en night, if you haven’t seen it.
I don’t think this movie is going to stay long in number-one position on the charts, but hell, I was wrong about “Gladiator”, so who knows?
From Hell has been one of the few movies lately that I’ve felt a strong urge to see. I haven’t read the graphic novel on which the movie is based, but I liked the twist on the Ripper story.
The opening shot reminded me of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. The movie is gory, but I don’t know if it’s that much gorier than any other slasher flick. I actually felt scared, which is rare for me at horror movies. I have to say it’s an effective horror movie if it can get me scared over murders that occured over a century ago and an ocean away.
Little Bird, you’re right on that one, I wouldn’t recommend it around a meal time.
Like you, Ballybay, I felt an urge to see it, I enjoyed the Coppola movie also… There is nothing particularly new about the twist on the Ripper story. I don’t want to post a spoiler, but let’s say that the theory presented here has been used in movies before.
I’m considering seeing this one, if for no other reason than to make film adaptations of Alan Moore’s work seem profitable. I was a comic geek with a full head of hair when I started waiting for the film adaptation of “The Watchmen”.
I thought it was quite good, if not fantastic. I liked how much the Hughes brothers were allowed to make the movie they wanted – there was clearly very little influence from the “suits.” I can imagine the conversation:
Studio guy: We have a few notes.
Albert Huges: We’ll hire Heather Graham.
Studio guy: Sounds good. See you at the premiere!
Heather Graham is not a very good actress, and I’ve never liked her when she’s been asked to do anything more than look pretty. (And she’s never looked as pretty as she did in Twin Peaks, anyway.) But in this movie I thought she did pretty well.
Hey! I like Heather Graham. And she did wonderful acting in Boogie Nights. I’ve also liked her turns in comedies. She isn’t as funny as Cameron Diaz, but then, who is?
She did look very pretty in this movie, remarkably unspoiled physically by her life as a street whore. Having slept in a sitting position next to many other poor shabby people, she still manages to wake up dewy fresh, face glowing with just the right make-up, hair full and wavy and shining clean. Well, we are used to suspend disbelief when faced with such picayune details in movies. What I had most trouble with was the lack of apparent chemistry between her and Johnny Depp. You just don’t believe that he could sacrifice so much for a woman he doesn’t seem to particularly like. (Don’t tell me about the kiss: one of the lamest examples of osculation in movie history: I’ve seen people kiss their dogs with more passion).
No, it’s definitely not either one of those. It’s a “Disturbance Flick”, in that it’s supposed to leave you emotionally and psychologically… disturbed. In that way, I compare it with Se7en, which means I give it good marks.
But don’t go see it if you have a weak stomach. I regularly visit Rotten.com and the Stile Project, and even so, I felt my stomach churning several times. And the thing is, the gore isn’t very explicit… it’s implied more than it’s shown. And I think that by leaving it up to my imagination to fill in the blanks, the director did an even better job of yanking my mental facilities around.
Just got back from seeing From Hell. I liked it. I was a bit apprehensive, after seeing the documentary of Jack the Ripper on The History Channel (or was it A&E?), that it would just be wrong. As it was, the film did not contradict my very limited knowledge of the murders. I realized that much creative license would have to be taken, such as the relationship between Inspector Abberline and Mary Kelly, but not being a follower of Jack the Ripper’s career it did not bother me.
don’t ask’s link concludes:
So don’t use it as a source for your Criminal Science class, but enjoy it as entertainment. I enjoyed it.
SPOOFE: You really thought Se7en was less disturbing? I thought the effects in From Hell were nicely done, but I didn’t really find them
disturbing.
I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was very interesting, especially when they revealed who Jack the Ripper was (or their theory to who it was). I was thinking it was someone else.
But I am curious about something, specifically about their scene with the Elephant Man, Joseph Merrick. Who played him in this movie? I looked on the IMDB, but it doesn’t say (or maybe I just missed it). He appears in one good five minute scene (the unveiling of him at the London Hospital even though in real life it took place two years before, in 1886) and before in one of Depp’s visions.
