Rating: 
Summary: Jack the Ripper movie
Review: Despite what many think, this movie about Jack the Ripper is mainly about the phsycho and his gruesome murders. It tells a very good theory about who the killer really was 110 years ago, and I believe thats the most reasonable solution. Lots of Gore really gets you into the movie and shows how this guy was a extremely violent. The music alone would make a Friday the 13th movie scary.
Rating: 
Summary: Too Predictable and Violent
Review: It's easy to see what the Hughes Brothers wanted to do with From Hell. They aspired to show the seamy underbelly of Victorian London to reveal that it is just as hellish, if not more so, than the urban ghettoes of today. So, in terms of atmosphere and overall presentation, From Hell is a well-done film. But as an entertainment, it fails on two main levels. First, it's predictable. Like any slasher movie, you know the second one person breaks off from a group that they're going to die very soon thereafter. And so the suspense drains out at a rapid pace. The other problem is that the film is just too violent. The ultraviolent sequences in the film have wincing quality to them. Generally, you watch them and say to yourself, "I didn't really need to see that." And you don't. Violence is much more effective when it's implied rather than shown explicitly. The cast is game, with nice turns from Ian Holm (wearing contact lenses much scarier than anything else in the film), Jason Flemyng, and Robbie Coltrane. But with Johnny Depp doing an addict version of his character from Sleepy Hollow, and Heather Graham as the token girl-who's-way-too-good-looking-to-be-an-actual-prostitute-and-will-be-the-only-one-not-to-die, the leads feel flat. Combine that with the Hughes Brothers choice to shock over generating genuine suspense, and From Hell is a disappointment.
Rating: 
Summary: Bloodier version of "Murder By Decree"
Review: This film is not unique in that it is simply rehashing an old theory which first appeared on film with "Murder By Decree". Christopher Plummer played Sherlock Holmes, who discovered precisely what the druggie police inspector does in this film--that there is a momumental "conspiracy" afoot which seeks to get rid of the threat of an earth-shattering scandal. The only difference in terms of plot is that the inspector becomes involved with one of the Ripper's intended victims. Otherwise, the only difference is that there is more blood and gore in this version, along with much more detail depicting the seedy side of the oft-romanticized Victorian era. Though I am by no means a "Ripperologist", I was still disappointed. Stick with the classic (and might I add, original), folks; it will be out on DVD in 2003.
Rating:
Summary: Iffy
Review: I wouldn't exactly call this movie a dissapointment, as I didn't really expect to be captivated by it in the first place. You must always approach a movie like this with expectations of it being anywhere from mediocre to aweful. And if you're lucky, you'll be pleasantly suprised. I was niether pleasantly suprised nor disgusted by this movie.
My reasons for seeing this movie were as follows: Johnny Depp (a fantastic actor) and Jack the Ripper (I enjoy mysterious and morbid stories....especially if they're true...i.e. The Manson Family murders, Jack the Ripper, Son of Sam etc...).
Johnny Depp of course lived up to his role as the actor who can play anything. I doubt if there's one movie in all of his credits in which he plays a character in a similar way. Perhaps he did not reach his full potential as an actor in this movie, but he certainly added to his "never the same character" list.
In terms of the Jack the Ripper aspect, I was originally skeptical of the storyline which seemed to be made up. But when I further researched the subject of Jack the Ripper I found that the storyline in the movie was not only quite possible but likely to be true.
Finally, and perhaps the most enjoyable aspect of this movie, the visuals of this movie were very well done. Rather than presenting a constant dark, grim atmosphere (usually presented with greys and blacks in murder films and with blues and greys in ghost films) From Hell was unusually colorful. Somehow, this use of color seemed to work with the movie rather than spoiling whatever tenseness we might be feeling while watching it. It was an intelligent use of color. The cinematography, though interesting and intruiging, played into the modern use of fast cuts and quick scenes (used to satisfy the ever shortening attention span of our young audience) and was less than original. Yet some speeded up shots tended to contribute to the eerieness and creepyness of the film (whatever small bit of it there was) rather than destroying it.
Finally, and perhaps the reason that this movie didn't have the spark it needed, it lacked depth...most espeically within the characters. The most depth we see in any of the characters is Johnny Depp's opium habbit, a single memory of his deceased wife, and Heather Grahm's memory of her little cottage in Ireland which is reffered back to about 3 times in the movie. Other than that, we are simply watching Jack the Ripper kill off a bunch of "unfortunates" (aka: prostitutes), Johnny Depp and Heather Grahm get invovled (kindof...? their relationship lacked depth as well), and a bunch of incredibly sick old guys have creepy secret underground meetings.
This movie is something to watch on a saturday night when you want to chill with your popcorn and maybe a few of your friends. It's not the kindof movie you would watch and have an in depth discussion of afterwards. It's purely for enjoyment (if it even does that for you) and should not be taken serriously.
Rating:
Summary: Torturous
Review: While this film looks really nice and the camerawork is relatively impressive, it is finally a failure in filmmaking. By no fault of either the Hughes Brothers or Johnny Depp - the only mystery here is how such a talented group of people made a film like this. It isn't enough that the Jack the Ripper story has already been done in so many ways that it has ceased to be interesting, but here the identity of the ripper is telegraphed to the audience at such an early point in the film that it is laughable - like a Scooby Doo cartoon almost. Additionally, it's difficult to suspend disbelief at times - espescially when confronted with Heather Graham's rosy cheeked and milky complected prostitute - who shows her connection to the grotty and filthy streets she inhabits by her perfect straight white teeth and a smudge of dirt on her face. Ultimately a failure, but perhaps worth a rental.
Rating:
Summary: Good premise...Not-so-good outcome.
Review: This film adaptation by the Hughes Brothers, though cinematically stylish and darkly brooding, runs immediately into predictable territory within the first 10 minutes. The casting itself is passable with Heather Graham, and Depp and Holm have good chemistry together; however, the only truly believable characters were the whores themselves...derelicts of society who use their womanhood as their livelihood- constantly striving for absolution from their sentences to poverty, only receiving it in horrific deaths. The DVD comes full of extras for the die-hard fan (as DVDs should): commentary, featurettes, deleted scenes. In my opinion, however, the "deleted scenes" are actually "deleted shots" since most last no more than a few seconds. Overall, it's too much of a "whodunit" pipe-dream. Ol' Jack would have turned his nose up at a tale that is so uninspired.
Rating:
Summary: What the Heck?
Review: Although an extremly good idea to make a movie about Jack the Ripper, who caused fear and trouble in Whitechapel in England in 1888, however, this movie lacked the depth and most importantly, THERE IS NO FEELING OF TERROR at all. I've never read the comic book this flick is based upon, but as a movie fanatic, I could sense prediction and knew what was going to happen. The directors probably concentrated more on gore and splatter (and there are plenty of those) instead of the mystery and the theme that puts the audience into curiousity and left with a big question mark when they leave the cinema. Here we are given the story and the suspect, which we get to find out in this movie (no one ever knew who Jack the Ripper was, as we all know) from their point of view. There are very few scary/tense scenes, except maybe one or two small jump scenes.
The movie, however, is very accurate and convincing potraying the streets of England, with low-lives and bums everywhere, blended in with those richer folks, and carriages and the wet and dark alleys and crowdy streets. What saves the movie a bit is the visual: in the beginning we see London with a orange/redish sky marking hell in the horizon. There are stunning details in the movie. The actors (Depp and Graham) do a good job and have convincing Cockney/Scotish accent. The love story is very thin here as well. I won't mention the story and plot, but it is very predictable, EXCEPT the very end, the last scene.
In all, this movie isn't too good, with no real feeling of fear and terror, no mystery that should have been left unsolved, no psychological horror (which I think this movie should have been about, of course mixed with the gore and the blood), and no real structure in the love story between Depp and Graham. This is just another splatter movie that could have been a masterpiece.
Rating:
Summary: Lost opportunity
Review: This looks and sounds wonderful and the performances are top-notch (with the exception of the woefully miscast Robbie Coltrane and Heather Graham). How unfortunate that it's marred by a plodding script which wanders into over-complicated conspiracy theories, and direction which only momentarily rises to the pitch of terror required by the subject. In a genre where anticipation and payoff are the key requirements, interest here is quickly lost. That this film is so close to being good makes it all the more disappointing. Recast a few characters and cut 20 pages from the script, and it would have been a winner.
Rating:
Summary: Not the movie released to the theaters: Much more accurate
Review: There are so many differences in the DVD version from the Theatrical release as to make one ask how powerful the Masons are still today.... This film is very close to the actual events that occured, but the theater version made none of the connections the DVD does.....Indeed, I was very disappointed in the movie version and that is why it has taken me so long to view the DVD..... Having done much research on these killings, I have constantly been unhappy with the way the Masons and the royality have been able to cloud the issue, providing their own "Oswald" as it were in an effort to protect Prince Eddy....who many still believe did the killings along with Walter Sickert and John Netly. (Walter Sickert was used to locate the 5, Netly and Eddy, or Gull, did the deeds) This DVD cut Starts at Cleveland Street where the story begins and keeps many things in proper perspective: these were not randowm killings but executions, all the women knew each other and what was going on and why, (Marie Kelly was hiding, someone was paying for her room, possibly Sickert who was "forced" into the deal, and who helped Alice Crook survive) the investigation was controlled by the Masons in the person who took over the investigation until Marie Kelly was located. (I don't have the patience to look up all the names right now, but get the book "Prince Jack", or even Stephen Knight's book, and you will have them all, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, etc......in some ways this was England's JFK...... The deleted scenes should be added and re-released as a whole....and the fact that Gull and Aberline both died of natural causes is important too. For the flaws in the history, the DVD stills presents the best re-inactment since "Murder By Decree" with Christopher Plummer and James Mason, and I highly recommend that film to anyone who is truly interested in the ripper murders.....
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant atmosphere
Review: my personal opinion of the film is that the hughes brothers did an excellent job at creating a perfect atmosphere and brutal feel to the picture. johnny depp is always a good actor, and ian holm did a great job also. heather graham was a mistake, but we all make them, plus her part did not require an excellent actress anyhow. the only true flaw i feel did not fit in was the black eyes, you'll know what i mean when you watch the movie. it's a nice effect for some movies, but not this one.
|
