From Hell

The best thing about an enduring mystery is that people can feel free to take all sorts of liberties with the facts and create interesting "what if" scenarios. FROM HELL is a perfect example. For the record, the theory behind the killings is pretty much right out of JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL SOLUTION by Stephen Knight, and it's been pretty well discredited since it first came out twenty years ago, even though it makes a hell of an entertaining piece of fiction.

I completely discount any criticisms of the movie where people say "it didn't happen that way". Of course it didn't; that's why this is a fictional film and not a documentary. It's very loosely based on the Alan Moore graphic novel, and about all it retains of it is the Duke of Clarence theory and the stylish look of the architecture. It's enough to make the film beautiful to watch.

Yes, I know that four of the five victims of Jack the Ripper were women in their late 40's, which on the streets of Victorian London would mean that they would resemble crones in their late 60's or early 70's. Just try to make that fly past a Hollywood studio boss; the casting at least had women who looked fairly human rather than like fallen glamour girls. I've read a couple of comments disparaging the accents. Actually, Cockney accents were the norm in the street because people tried to blend in and often weren't eager to advertise Scottish or Irish origins.

I call special attention to the performance of Jason Flemyng in the role of Netley, the coachman, arguably the most fascinating and believable character in the whole production. Most of his best scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, unfortunately, and yet he still manages to pull the movie together into a cohesive whole just by his presence. (It must have been a heck of a fun role to play!) As well, Sir Ian Holm deserves special mention for stepping in when the original choice for his role, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, tragically became ill and died just before the film went into production. I have never seen Sir Ian in any role that I didn't find completely believable, and that ranges all the way from KING LEAR to his role in ALIEN, for heaven's sake.

My interest in the whole Jack the Ripper case has been reawakened thanks to this movie, and I'm trying to hunt down a copy of Alan Moore's graphic novel (which is very difficult to find). No, it's not even close to an approximation of what really happened; nobody will ever know the truth, Patricia Cornwell's arrogant claims notwithstanding. It's still worth renting, if only for the beautifully ominous score and the fascinating transformation of Prague into Victorian London. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A dark and meticulous tale, based around the murders of Jack the Ripper in Whitechapel, London. The films look is no more than what you would expect from a one based on Jack the Ripper. Dark shadows loom over the characters as the satanic nature of The Ripper is emphasised. It's such an intriguing story and character that every time I watch a film based on this story I come away slightly disappointed. This time was no exception. While the acting was good (minus some quite unconvincing cockney accents - Heather Graham and Johnny Depp, I'm talking to you) and the direction assured, the script seemed a little reserved. There was no great insight into any of the characters, and much of it played out like a simple murder mystery. But this didn't stop me from enjoying the 120 or so minutes.

Why did I enjoy this film, I hear you ask? For a start, the direction was superb - the streets of London looked grimy, while the `unfortunates' (i.e., prostitutes) wandered around in squalor awaiting their fate. This produced a wonderful atmosphere, creating murder scenes that were much more terrifying and shocking (and very gruesome). Johnny Depp's performance (as the detective Abberline), as always, was hugely enjoyable to watch. He played his character in a very subtle way - halfway between comic and serious. He portrays a desperate man, constantly resorting to drugs so he can pass through the day. Depp and the filmmakers see him as a version of Sherlock Holmes, constantly finding clues that other police officers have overlooked (cliched, yes, but somehow Depp provides a little bit of originality). Abberline even suggests that the killer must be a learned man! How could this be?! While dismissed by all the other characters in the film (for a learned man would never commit acts of such debauchery), we as an audience know better not to trust a detective like this - their preposterous ideas are usually right. Another actor to praise in this is the wonderful Ian Holm. He plays his character with a wry little smile, seemingly enjoying every line he says. His interactions with Depp are great to watch.

While the film provides little to ponder on once the credits have rolled, you can leave satisfied that you have seen a stylish and enjoyable film. The Hughes brothers seem to be a talented pair of directors.

For those that care I gave this film 7/10

30 Second Bottom Line: The infamous Jack the Ripper serial killer mystery unfolds in Victorian England as a stylistic who dun it.

From Hell is an exciting murder mystery with a number of hints about who dun it to keep things interesting every step of the way. Depp gives his expected, outstanding and other worldly performance. Ian Holm, Katrin Cartlidge, Robbie Coltrane and Ian Richardson and some of the unnamed prostitutes give the film an edge that takes us back a century in time. Heather Graham is OK and I'm pleased to see her doing something beyond Say it Isn't So and more along the lines of Sidewalks of New York. She is, however, a little too pretty, sophisticated, charming and clean for a street ho. Katrin Cartlidge would have been a better Mary. It's a little bit of a stretch to envision the Inspector and the whore Mary falling in love, but stranger things have happened.

It's always gratifying to see actors, writers and directors grow; and certainly the Hughes Brothers are doing that. They have not made a lot of films but each one is very good. The two could be a Stanley Kubrick in the making, as he only made 13 films during a long, respected and controversial career. Since 1993, they've made Menace II Society, Dead Presidents and American Pimp. From Hell is more sophisticated while still retaining a dark tone that is not depressing. Peter Deming as cinematographer has outdone himself with From Hell and Mulholland Drive. It's clearly Oscar caliber work.

Although From Hell is based on a comprehensive novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, with the focus on a real killer in 1888, the film is not trying to be a JFK and convince us how it really happened. That said, when you realize who the killer is you are faced with an interesting hypothesis.

Jack the Ripper may have been crazy, but he was acting out of logic (his own to be sure) and for a reason other than wanting to kill a few prostitutes. The fog in London finally is lifted on the murder mystery and on the Hughes Brothers being great directors.

Message on the movie: We can't always have what we want from life. Evil exists. Victorian England was a very unpleasant place and era.

So the conclusion is that this movie is a fair movie althouht actually it hadn't got a very clear ending, it is fantastic thriller to watch and remember don't miss this one.

An interesting, if not totally successful variation on the Jack The Ripper story, blighted by Hollywood yet again assuming that anyone in London says "cor blimey" a lot, and speaks in the same exaggerated "cock-er-ney" manner. This is a shame, as the film actually has a lot of good things going for it. Some genuinely chilling set pieces and a suitably grim visual style make for some scary moments. Sadly, particularly in the first half of the film, the Hughes Brothers (directing) seem to spend too much time trying to be visually clever when they should be putting more effort into getting on with the story. When they dispense with the visual gimmickry and the action is allowed to take off, the film is extremely gripping. On another level, the ending is particularly moving. A previous reviewer referred to the film's historical inaccuracies in depth, so I won't retread the same ground, but suffice to say that anyone familiar with the events will be distracted by these, although anyone new to the story wouldn't be affected. Performances are generally good, if not quite the principal performers' best work - in my book, the honours go to the ever reliable Ian Holm and Robbie Coltrane. Overall, this film is well worth a couple of hours of your time, but it could have been so much more...

The critics, nit-pickers and historical pedants who've trashed this superb piece of truly cinematic movie-making have totally missed the point.

So what if Johnny Depp's English accent isn't exactly "right" for his character? (English accents have always been problematic for all but the most skilled of American actors: Depp pulls it off entirely passably, way way better than - say - Keanu Reeves, risible in Coppola's Dracula. Think of Kevin Costner, who didn't even bother trying in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.) I'm a Londoner by birth, and for me the accent in no way detracted from Depp's excellent performance.

As for history, again, who cares if the filmmakers have employed a degree of dramatic licence? This is a movie, not a documentary. Nobody knows for sure who Jack the Ripper was, and in order to make the film interesting and enjoyable the writers have speculated a little. Fine by me.

OK, so Heather Graham was impossibly glamorous, but movies with big budgets need a little bit of star appeal. The notion of the "tart with a heart" is a cliché, sure, but nevertheless her character works in the context of the film. (Contrast the depiction of prostitution generally in this film with the utter garbage that is Pretty Woman.)

What's so great about this film? The quirky, literate script; the performances (all, with the possible exception of Graham, excellent); the wonderful photography and production design; the depiction of the murders themselves - elliptical, shocking, mesmerising; and above all the aura of brooding menace, gloom, cruelty, darkness, melancholy and downright despair running through it as deeply as the veins through a block of marble. This is marvellously thoughtful, evocative film-making, very bold and brave. No happy Hollywood ending, no phoney saccharine or cheap laughs to satisfy the popcorn brigade. This is a proper grown-ups movie that probes some of the darkest regions of the human psyche, places mainstream filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg, James Cameron and their ilk don't dare to go, or couldn't go even if they wanted to. To me it appeals almost on a subconscious level, forcing us to confront our deepest fears and taboos - death, pain, suffering, human wickedness. I can't think of a recent major release that is so relentlessly downbeat.

Don't let the detractors put you off. It's hardly surprising a generation weened on MTV - folk with the the attention span of a gnat and the emotional depth of a paper cup - didn't like it. They've got their Screams and their Scary Movies, and they're welcome to them. This is super stuff, and the Hughes brothers and their collaborators should be heartily congratulated for it.

A classic, not so much for the plot, which is a little contrived, but for its sure command of cinema as a visual storytelling medium.