Rating: 
Summary: entertaining. Good thriller with a twist.
Review: Depp plays a investigator trying to find out who is killing women in early London. great costumes and scenery. This story keeps you guessing on who the murderer is. Depp does a great job, his accent too is believable. Not too graphic although there are times of blood and gore. Good thriller with a twist.
Rating: 
Summary: Quaint monikers for rude body-parts
Review: I thought this movie was pretty bad. Melodramatic and cliché-ridden: swirling fog ... shadow of top-hatted figure .... carrying obligatory surgeon's bag ... over-acting street women and pimps (O so evil!) in pubs. Really gives it no sense or atmosphere of the period: this was a time when the class barrier would not have permitted the "ill-spoken" members of the police the social freedom to come and go that this movie allows them. The plot is a re-hash of previous movies on the Ripper, featuring Masons whose members reach to almost the highest echelons in the land, the Duke of Clarence (no, he is NOT the Ripper this time, but his naughtiness is the cause of all the bother). We come upon a bemused Johnny Depp in an opium den at the start of the movie, and he remains pretty bemused throughout, with sudden disconcerting bursts of activity; stimulated, we are expected to believe, by the incredible insight he draws from his opiated stupors. Poor Robbie Coltrane (and we know what he can do as "Cracker"), looks lost with the awful script he's given and is wasted here. The use of four letter words and quaint monikers for rude body-parts is overdone, seemingly with a good deal of self-conscious gloating (See? They used the same rude words we do today!). One big yawn, sorry.
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing overall.
Review: Considering all the good things about this film, it really should have been better than it is. The actors and performances are first rate (Johnny Depp has never been better, Ian Holm is wonderful, Robbie Coltrane too, and so is everyone else), the sets are first rate, the music is ok, but somehow it ends up being less than the sum of its parts.For me, it was just too disturbing. The Hughes brothers went for cheap ugly shocks instead of something else ... but I don't know what that something else is. One thing that bothered me was the paranoid conspiracy of Queen Victoria (a little hard to believe) being directly involved with, and knowledgeable about, the MD who was doing the killing. Message: don't trust the monarchy. This is ok with me, but for this reason, it is a little over the top. The other thing was the Masons (which is very hard to believe). Message: don't trust the upper classes. This is ok with me too, but the way this was done is just, I'm sorry but I have to say this, silly. (I am NOT a Mason.) So, in the end, it is the "Holywood" liberals insulting the audience with unbelievable and silly conspiracy theories. Along with ugly and cheap violence. There is very little, if anything, morally uplifting about this film, except maybe for Robbie Coltrane's character. The extra features are good on the collectors CD, except the Hughes brothers are not very articulate in their commentary. So, for me, the weak part of this film is the Hughes brothers. Sorry about that.
Rating:
Summary: From Hell
Review: From Hell was weird, Dumb, gross, sickening and hard to watch! The Hughes Brothers are the weirdest people! I thought that it was the dumbest movie EVER since the movie The Blair Witch Project!... From Hell was way to sickening for me to sit down and watch! It also had way- way to much... content in it! And why was John Merrick(The Elephant Man) in that movie? It was just plain gross and dumb and so are the directors!... I gave it a 2 stars because It was a tad bit interesting! But I hated it!
Rating:
Summary: Plagarism?!?!
Review: Kind of a mixed-up version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, wherein Johnny Depp smokes drugs and somebody else commits a crime.
The opening scene gives you a pretty good idea of the sort of movie this is going to be: panning into a computer generated London abyss, we see varied scenes of filth and degradation, including a cameo by the elephant man. I guess he was just happening by or somink. Which brings us to the subject of Johnny Depp's accent.
While living in Japan I was once informed that a certain other gaijin male was a kind of laughing stock among the Japanese: though he had learnt to speak fluent Japanese, he had apparently learnt from a woman and so he spoke fluent FEMALE Japanese. Well, the same thing seems to have happened to Johnny Depp.
As to Heather Graham's accent, if I were the directors I would have taken a whip to her: flogged her mercilessly. Also, I would have insisted that she prepare for her role as a low-grade prostitute by working as a prostitute for some time.
But anyway, so Johnny Depp smokes stuff and somebody else knifes a prostitute in a dark alley. They roust him out of the opium den in which he is languishing and take him by the scruff of the neck to get a load of a body in the morgue. HE mumbles words to the effect that yeah, that was the broad he seen in his revery and it becomes clear that being bombed on opium is Inspector Depp's way of solving crimes.
At this point I became convinced that the directors of the movie had read my novel SNOW... but then I reminded myself that this was hardly likely.
The best thing to do, if you are compelled to rent - I mean buy, yes, buy - the film is to freeze-frame it on a shot of Big Ben that comes on about 40 minutes into the picture. Just give yourself a hard copy right there and make up the rest of the movie in your imagination.
Rating:
Summary: Just Alright
Review: I purchased this DVD after hearing so many good things about it from friends... now I am a little angry that I had not spent my money on something else. It's not that this is a bad film - it's certainly entertaining; however, it is not what I was expecting. Let me start with the good things about the film. It had a good, creepy atmosphere about it. I think that this fact can mostly be accredited to the wonderfully scary musical score. The characters were likeable (for the most part) and the writing was good. The thing I was most impressed with was the set. It was absolutely TERRIFIC. Now, let me talk about the bad things. The single aspect that irked me the most was the terrible sequencing of time elapsing: one scene will occur in blue, overcast twilight, and two seconds later, the film will jump to a scene where it is sundown and the sky is blood-red, and two seconds later, it will be mid-morning the next day, and the sun is bright and shining, and two seconds later, it will be pitch black night. The second thing that got to me was the bad accents used by many of the characters that reduced their words to inarticulate garbles. You can barely understand them in some scenes. Third, I must comment that none of the first three murders had any momentum whatsoever: a prostitute walks into an alley and a figure suddenly grabs her and pulls her into complete darkness where we see the flicker of a knife and hear a struggle. Cliche, cliche, cliche... In fact, in the other two murders, we see less than that. It's not that I wanted a major gore-fest or anything; however, the most interesting aspect about Jack the Ripper is the terrible nature of the crimes, and I think that the killings should have been more deeply touched upon to bring the audience into the killer's realm. Lastly, I didn't like the look of the film. Have you ever seen a movie (for instance, Lost Souls) in which the film seemed to have been tinted for effect? Well, From Hell is very red. In fact, a friend of mine who was watching the film with me asked seriously, "Is the whole film going to be shot in black and red?", simply because the film had almost been devoid of any other colors during the first five minutes. This usually doesn't affect me. In this case, it did. This "fright-inducing" palette was so dramatic that it made parts of the movie feel fake and contrived (specifically, the exterior shots). These things may seem nit-picky, which is why I still gave the film four stars. If you want to see a good turn-of-the-century psychological thriller, I suggest The Others.
Rating:
Summary: What a Waste!
Review: The only reason I bought this DVD was because the trailers mislead me into believing that I would see Heather Graham topless. If I wanted to see her keep her clothes on all the time, I'd watch Austin Powers or some other shlock. I highly recommend you avoid this film like the plague and spend your money on something of real substance like "Wild Things" (Denise Richards topless) or "Swordfish" (Halle Berry topless).
Rating: 
Summary: Saucy Jack Revisited
Review: The first time I learned of the "true" identity of Jack the Ripper was from a book by Steven Knight, who I feel is the closest and most viable resource for this elusive killer's identity and facts surrounding the case. The movie adheres to much of Knight's solution and tells the tale in a dark, appropriately frightening fashion. Depp is, as usual, up to the task of portraying Frederick Abberline, lead detective on the case, and one of the few voices of reason (albeit through a haze of either drink or drugs) throughout this melange of criminals, both low and high estate, all the way to Buckingham Palace, who orchestrated this serial killing to maintain the Monarchy and keep it intact for the sake of England, ostensibly. I was not surprised to see that, at the end of the movie, Victoria feels gratitude that "we" have been saved, and not to make any further references to this episode..."we" are most grateful for your discretion in this matter. The implication of the Duke of Clarence, and what happened to his poor wife and child, is well-documented here, and when taken in context of the story and research that went into this production, one feels convinced that indeed, this is what happened and why. Ian Holm is wonderful in his role of Sir Wm. Gull, physician to the Queen, and the architect of the plan which she was entirely aware of from the ineception of same, and bore out my own feelings with respect to how much she played a part in these killings. Great atmosphere and really presents a window into Vicotrian London and the plight of the East End, and the tragic lives these women led, all very well-represented here. "We" were eminently entertained and thought the movie was well-directed and very well acted. If you are a Ripperologist, or merely curious, see this one...
Rating:
Summary: Shocking...not for those with a weak stomach
Review: This movie has great acting and the directors created an atmosphere to match the mood perfectly. Johnny Depp plays Inspector Frederick Abberline. He is an intelligent, drug addicted man who is depressed by a tragedy from his past and has burried himself in his work. He is extremely persistent in his job, but when it comes to Mary, one of the women Jack the Ripper is after, he is very sweet, caring, and determined to take care of her. Johnny Depp portrays this mix of emotions and characteristics brilliantly. The best part about Johnny Depp is that in each movie he is in, he actually seems to become the character he is playing. There is no connection to any other parts he has played because in each movie, he can change his appearance, voice, personality, or whatever else is needed for him to become that person. As I watched From Hell, I wasn't thinking 'There's Ichabod Crane(Sleepy Hallow) or Gilbert Grape(What's Eating Gilbert Grape). He is always recognizable, but always completly different. This movie is definetly worth seeing. However, if you haven't seen it, you might want to rent it before you buy it. Personally, this isn't the kind of movie I would choose to watch over and over.
Rating:
Summary: Well Done Art, Okay Story Line
Review: Scenery is done very well great costumes, setting and cast. And while I relise the story line was not the directors, I belive they should have kept 'Jack the Ripper's' identity unshown as the real case was instead of going on one of the main theories. I liked the personal touch of the story with Johnny Depp and Heather Graham falling in love even though she is going to die. That brings up another point, the French girl that dies in the end and Mary Kelly going to Ireland, as much as you want that to be the truth, the directors should have stuck with the true events, I do relise though that without changing things up to create human interest it would be nothing more than a murder diary on film. I did like this movie a lot in the art sense, and it is worth the buy.
And someone in a previous review talked about his absinth it is not poison is it opium he pours over the suger cube then lighting it causes it to carmelise and mix with the drink.
|
