View Full Version : From Hell
Spooky_uk
03-02-2002, 01:26
Saw this Saturday night thanks to a preview.
Quite graphic in places, but overall enjoyed it. Very dark and chilling and some great performances especially Robbie Coltrane as usuaul.
I also thought the ending summed up the movie perfectly...
Also enjoyed the "cameo" of a certain person that lived in the same time frame in two places - you'll know when you see him so I won't spoil it for you...
Overall a thumbs up from me although there are certain to be people with the opposite view point ;)
Tyler Durden
03-02-2002, 10:54
I also saw this at a free screening.
I felt it was entertaining for 2 hours but nothing more, while I wasn't bored at any point, it wasn't really edge of seat stuff. To me it played like a cross between Sleepy Hollow & Bram Stokers Dracula. The acting and scenes of squalor in London were convincing enough, although Jonny Depps 'cor blimey guvnor' accent was a little grating to start with.
It didn't really bring anything new to the story but anyone with an interest in the ripper mythos should enjoy it.
grounded_dreams
04-02-2002, 13:03
It was far better that I thought it would be (after seeing the trailer).
Johnny Depps accent is 'truly' awful, but I suppose the american market, didn't realise :)
The spooky London scenes are created very nicely (Peter Deming is the Cinematographer BTW).
Worth a look, IMO
I saw it this evening at a Stella screening and I didnt enjoy it anywhere near as much as I had hoped. I just felt it lacked substance and fell short in most areas of the movie.
I enjoyed it but I've no desire to see it again or reccoment it. Unfortunatley I found it very unremarkable.
I've a lot of respect for Johny Depp as an actor but his accent in this was dire, it reminded me of the guy from Waynes World 2 "I managed to take out da tiger wiv a can ov mace, but vu shopkeep and his son, well dats a different story altogever", you know the guy? ;) although in fairness I got used to it after a while.
So dissapointing, not a total right of, but not scary (although it is quite grusome in places) or especially entertaining.
Shame.. :(
Disappearer
06-02-2002, 22:50
It's certainly nowhere near as good as the graphic novel, but it's adapted well for the sreen, even though those who've read the book may find it jarring that the killer isn't "unmasked" until the end.
Depp's accent was fine.
Tyler Durden
07-02-2002, 12:07
Originally posted by Disappearer
Depp's accent was fine.
:eek: ;) :eek:
Originally posted by Disappearer
Depp's accent was fine.
:eek: ;)
well i saw From Hell yesterday at the UGC in Belfast (was surprised they even showed it!) and must say that i really enjoyed it.
It's not really scary but it was suspenseful at times and i thought it looked great, the settings were superb.
Only bad points were:
1. I worked out who Jack The Ripper was within the first 5 secs of hearing his voice (well, who the film had as Jack The Ripper )
2. Heather Grahams truly dire irish accent, in fact what irish accent ?
3. Robbie Coltrane was a bit underused i thought.
Thought Johnny Depps cockney accent was pretty good (though since im not cockney i cant be sure) and i did get a laugh when he said 'You want me to stand here like a right nob' to a fellow policeman
At least they didn't try to make him an American cop in London or some nonsense like that.
Also, anyone have any ideas as to where i can get the graphic novel from ?
Would love to read it after seeing the film.
All in all, i really enjoyed the film and can't wait to get the dvd, certainly a keeper for me - whats the date for it ?
ethanfox
09-02-2002, 02:10
saw it tonight and thought they did a really good job at adapting a difficult novel.
Half the audience in the cinema I saw it at seemed to hate it and not understand it but overall I'd say a job well done.
I saw the film a couple of nights ago and really enjoyed it. The grim depiction of London at the time was probably spot on. Robbie Coltrane was great and Johnny Depp well I must be one of the only one's to agree with dissapear but I thought his accent was good. I know alot of people back home (cockneys) who sound almost identical.The worst accent definitely went to Heather Graham!! What was it meant to be? I know she had the excuse of moving away from Ireland and the possibility of it wearing thin but there was nothin there. Was the French lesbian "Nicole" from Renault adverts? I thought she looked familiar.
Done some searching and it was Nicole, a.k.a. Estelle Skornik. She played Ada IIRC.
http://jyanet.com/cap/1999/0601fea1.jpg
Disappearer
09-02-2002, 08:10
Originally posted by mr_woo
Also, anyone have any ideas as to where i can get the graphic novel from ?
Would love to read it after seeing the film.
Should be able to find it in most bookshops especially now it's got one of those "now a major motion picture" covers. Failing that, your local comic book store (if you've got one).
Arch Stanton
09-02-2002, 11:53
Originally posted by Disappearer
Should be able to find it in most bookshops especially now it's got one of those "now a major motion picture" covers. Failing that, your local comic book store (if you've got one).
Amazon / BOL should sell it as well.
The book is much much more complex than the film and it's also a darn site nastier.
( Infact it's banned in New Zealand )
Tyler Durden
09-02-2002, 12:48
Originally posted by Arch Stanton
Amazon / BOL should sell it as well.
Amazon had it for about £17, however its now gone up to £24 :(
camino_real
09-02-2002, 17:15
Sadly this is one of those films that turns out to be Not As Good As You Hoped. Although I've not read the source novel (I didn't want to be annoyed by the bits the film left out) it hardly seems likely, knowing Alan Moores work, that it's as straightforward as this film version. Depp and Coltrane are fine but Heather Graham neither looks nor sounds like a cockney prostitute. Her accent is all over the place and you know she's the leading lady as she's so much cleaner and prettier than her "unfortunate" friends. How she keeps her hair so shiny and managable when the rest of the cast have such problems I cannot begin to imagine. :D
Ol' Blue Eyes
10-02-2002, 21:58
I wasn't crazy about it, thought it was a gloomy and ponderous thriller with pretentions. Also pretty ridiculous in its plotting...
If you had to kill people to cover up a secret, wouldn't you do it in a way that wouldn't draw attention to the crimes? I understand that the Ripper was insane but were the others who assisted him completely dense?
Morpheus2000
10-02-2002, 22:34
From Hell is set in 19th Century London and Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp) is on the trail of Jack the Ripper. Abberline is a drug addict and is clairvoyant so he can foresee the murders committed by the Ripper. He later crosses paths with one of the Rippers next victims Mary Kelly (Heater Graham), whom he falls in love with.
Visually this film is superb from the foreboding cinematography and excellent production values. Since this film is a period piece it the draws the viewer into the world of Inspector Abberline and his trusty Sergeant Godley (Robbie Coltrane). The film has a constant gloomy look, which adds an atmosphere of apocalyptic apprehension.
The story is truly excellent. Very few films have a complicated plot that actually work (LA Confidential is another fine example) and the Hughes Brothers pull it off magnificently combined with the primordial appeal to the film. From Hell is actually based upon a graphic novel of the same name.
As the story is eventually revealed to the audience the tension is kept high as both fact and fiction are well combined to throw the viewer off as to who is the Ripper. Performances are excellent from everyone, particularly from Johnny Depp as he does the English accent perfectly. Overall an excellent film, so miss it at your own peril.
Morpheus2000
10-02-2002, 22:35
Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
I wasn't crazy about it, thought it was a gloomy and ponderous thriller with pretentions. Also pretty ridiculous in its plotting...
If you had to kill people to cover up a secret, wouldn't you do it in a way that wouldn't draw attention to the crimes? I understand that the Ripper was insane but were the others who assisted him completely dense?
I think the ending of the film went over your head!
Disappearer
10-02-2002, 22:52
Originally posted by Ol' Blue Eyes
If you had to kill people to cover up a secret, wouldn't you do it in a way that wouldn't draw attention to the crimes? I understand that the Ripper was insane but were the others who assisted him completely dense?
I don't think they expected Gull to knock of the prostitutes in such a dramtic fashion.
Ol' Blue Eyes
10-02-2002, 23:09
Originally posted by Disappearer
I don't think they expected Gull to knock of the prostitutes in such a dramtic fashion.
Okay but after he killed the first prostitute that way, why did they not only allow him to continue killing the others by the same method but help him do it, even when Johnny Depp was closing in on them? And if they didn't want the prostitutes killed in such a manner, why did they ask a surgeon to carry out the murders in the first place? Surely the special branch thug could have either done it himself or found some cutthroat to do it anonymously? For that matter, why didn't they just kidnap and lobotomise them like they did their friend? Sorry but the conspiracy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Dan Druff
11-02-2002, 09:09
[Dan's belated review of From Hell]
Based on the Alan Moore graphic novel of the same name, From Hell takes genuine facts surrounding the Whitechapel murders of Jack the Ripper and uses them to weave a tale of intrigue and squalor, and with a look so faithful to the source that the Hughes brothers should really take a bow.
Detective Abberline (Johnny Depp) uses his opium addiction to instill visions of a strange cloaked figure who murders ladies of the night in Londons most deprived street and alley ways. Aided by his fellow detective Sergeant Godley (Robbie Coltrane) he interviews one of the prostitutes Mary Kelly (Heather Graham) to try and solve the mystery behind the sick and perverse deaths of her friends, and uncovers a plot that could lead to the downfall of the British Empire..
Truly superb. It differs from the Graphic Novel in a number of regards but I don’t believe the book could have been better represented. Even Joseph Carey Merrick (The Elephant Man), is brought in straight from the pages of the book (though not as a representation of the Indian god Ganesh in this instance). There are also new characters added, such as Godley, and others, such as Sickert, are nowhere to be seen, but that’s understandable in the movies transformation to the big screen.
In one important way the movie does differ from the source is in its treatment of the story as a ‘whodunnit’. In the novel we knew who was the perpetrator from the beginning and this allowed us to witness his descent into psychosis, and also added a tension whereby we knew Gull was the culprit, but Abberline (who was not a drug addict and lived for many more years) did not. But his is a minor niggle and does not subtract from the power of the movie one iota.
I truly hope they hand Watchmen to the Hughes Brothers as this is the best possible adaption of an Alan Moore masterpiece and will be extremely hard to beat.
gavinhanly
11-02-2002, 21:29
I was bitterly disappointed by this film. It seemed to shout out everything that is wrong about hollywood.
(few spoilers below)
They took an totally fresh look at the ripper mythos - i.e. one where you know who the killer is from the start and you see the murders from his eyes, together with the "reasoning" behind them - and turned it into a mundane horror whodunnit.
The book took its time in getting to the murders - thus setting up a feeling of dread that the film coudn't hope to match. And the prostitutes knew all along who Albert was - and were attempting blackmail to pay off the gang after them. A much more interesting reason for their danger than the film imagined.
And as for the "chase" at the end...oh dear oh dear oh dear - retreating back to hollywood stereotype...
Sure it looked good - and the music was OK - but that's about it.
All I can say is read the book - a far more entertaining and rewarding experience. One which still has a VERY good twist at the end (which you know if you've seen the film - but it's far less signposted in the book). Plus when Abberline finds out who did it - it's far more shocking than in the film because of the totally unexpeted way he finds out.
Oh well - I've got that off my chest...read the book!!!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0861661419/o/qid=1013466500/sr=8-1/ref=sr_aps_b_1_1/026-6568476-9878034
Mr Dubby
15-02-2002, 11:18
There's a lot of comment about accents on here and as I've not yet seen the film I just thought I'd ask how Joanne Page's accent was? - I think she plays one of the victims called Annie Crook or Cook or something - busty and big blonde curls.
I met her once when she was playing this 'plummy' upper class English woman during WW2 - having heard her on set and then speaking to her afterwards I was amazed because she had the broadest broad Welsh accent I've ever heard !! I'm interested to hear her cockney accent!
I'm still waiting for the film to come to our odeon complex!
Just saw this tonight.
I was quite dissapointed but the friend who came with me quite liked it although he thought long time dead was good.
I didn't think much of the plot. Though it wasn't boring it was hardly gripping. If this was a whodunnit I didn't much care. If they were going to take artistic license with the facts they could have done a better job. It would have been much better if they made a film that was closer to the likely story. Even that micheal caine TV movie was much better than this.
As for the confusion about the ending
This was one of the parts that I found stupid. All the victims are supposed witness being picked off by a killer that's performing a duty to protect someone but at the same time doing it ritulisticlly.
If they were going to do that there was little point doing it as part of the ripper story. It would have been easier to transfer the "plot" to the modern day. The ripper angle seems like it came from the marketing side of things rather than the artistic side.
Dan Druff
20-02-2002, 09:42
Originally posted by camaj
It would have been easier to transfer the "plot" to the modern day.
I don't think Alan Moore or any of his legions of fans would have been impressed! :brickwall
Arch Stanton
20-02-2002, 09:48
Originally posted by Dan Druff
I don't think Alan Moore or any of his legions of fans would have been impressed! :brickwall
Don't think Alan Moore could give a toss.
He's not even seen the film. In his own words....'I might watch it on video when it's out'.
Make it modern day is a dumb dumb dumb idea though. :)
I haven't read the graphical novel so I can't say anything about what alan more thinks.
My point about making it set in the modern day was that the film really had nothing to do with the ripper. Anything ripper related was superficial and hence there was little point in doing a jack the ripper film. The plot wouldn't have been out of place in the modern era and it seems that the only reason that wasn't done was because they wanted to expoilt the jack the ripper connection. It would have been cheaper for them to do it in the modern day too. No worry about expensive locations and costumes there.
Dan Druff
21-02-2002, 13:07
Originally posted by camaj
I haven't read the graphical novel so I can't say anything about what alan more thinks.
Read it camaj. Read From Hell.
Then read your posts on the subject and kick thyself.
"Murder by Decree" did the whole Stephen Knight theory with a lot more conviction I thought.
Ian Holm acted everybody else off screen, Robbie Coltrane played the same role he always plays in American movies, Johnny Depp and Heather Graham were adequate but have both been much better elsewhere.
I thought this was a big comedown after the superb "Dead Presidents".
just seen this film 2nite on big screen and wasnt as good as i thought it would be, certianly one not for the DVD collection ;)
Well, sadly it turned out to be just another tedious slasher flick. Not a memorable line, scene or performance in the whole thing. The sets were claustrophobic and all that green gas was last seen in a Joel Schumacher Batman film.
It seems to be loosely based on Sleepy Hollow, Coppola’s Dracula and some (very) basic details on the Jack the Ripper story. It’s not really based on the graphic novel at all. The genius of From Hell in it’s original form was in the quality of the storytelling, and the fact that Moore could back up every fictional decision he made with possible fact. Neither of these qualities is present here.
Depp’s been miscast before and got away with it (Donnie Brasco) but struggles this time. Presumably the Police Chief who suggests to him that this could be the work of American Indians doesn’t notice Depp’s own racial heritage. Added to which Depp’s demise (I’m not spoiling anything here – it’s set in 1888 so you can be sure he’s shuffled off by now) is a good 40 years out of wack! Not to mention dramatically pointless.
‘The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing’ was written on a wall beside a ripper victim. Depp the detective takes one look at it, his peers believing it to be the scribblings of a low class murderer, to tell them it is the work of a highly educated man. Maybe ‘Juwes’ isn’t a reference to Jews but something else? Well, maybe so, but surely the rest of it needs a second look Johnny! Educated?
Moore begins the graphic novel with a dedication to the five victims. ‘To you and your demise. Of this alone we are certain.’ The Hughes Bros aren’t even certain of that. You wonder why they bothered.
Fugeddaboudit.
Originally posted by McD
‘The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing’ was written on a wall beside a ripper victim. Depp the detective takes one look at it, his peers believing it to be the scribblings of a low class murderer, to tell them it is the work of a highly educated man. Maybe ‘Juwes’ isn’t a reference to Jews but something else? Well, maybe so, but surely the rest of it needs a second look Johnny! Educated?
LOL, i actually heard him say educated but i then corrected my self in my mind, cos i thought i heard him wrong hehe.
Thinking back he actually says "ed-ju-kate-ed" which is annoying after a bit.
McD has got it pretty much spot on. Can you imagine if they did Titanic only nobody actually died but they all got a little bit cold?
I'm sure they're dissapointed that the son of sam killings were done by someone who was told to do it by a dog. They probably would have added that in if it wasn't in there already.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Dan Druff
There are also new characters added, such as Godley, and others, such as Sickert, are nowhere to be seen, but that’s understandable in the movies transformation to the big screen.
Godley appears in the original graphic novel pretty much in the same role, although physically he and Abberline switch places for the film. I was sad at the Sickert omission mainly as the original artwork I have from the graphic novel features him! But I suppose it was the right choice for the film, possibly the only one they made! The only thing I could spot as being added was the 'pennies for the ferryman'.
Your comments about the whodunit nature in your ‘spoiler tags’ remind me of the excellent TV drama on the Yorkshire Ripper from a couple of years ago starring Alun Armstrong - where Peter Sutcliffe was on the wings from the beginning but not actually seen till the end. From Hell was nowhere near as classy, sadly.
I recommend the graphic novel to everyone (despite reservations about the price). And persevere through Chapter Four – many will find that hard going, especially if you’re new to the adult comic scene. It gets back on track afterwards, I promise.
Although it was of no use to the movie, Moore’s second Appendix, a 24 page history of Ripper Literature in comic form, is at least as good as the rest of the book, showing exactly what you can do in comics, and in my mind it was Moore’s best work of the 90’s. And I rate him as the most consistently ingenious and entertaining writer in English so I was very impressed!
Originally posted by Dan Druff
I truly hope they hand Watchmen to the Hughes Brothers as this is the best possible adaption of an Alan Moore masterpiece and will be extremely hard to beat.
To be totally honest, I’m stuck at guessing how it could have been any worse! It was truly awful – especially compared to the possibilities in the source material. It’s easy to say, but I think I could have made it better myself on a £1m budget, no stars and two weeks to adapt the screenplay. It was all pretty well storyboarded going in. Check out (McD consults his hardback volume) Chapter 13, pages 4 and 5. Imagine that as a finale to the film, with Abberline running back in to the sweetshop, foaming at the mouth, realising everything. Perfect. Instead we get some other nonsense about Abberline on opium of no dramatic worth or historical accuracy.
A missed opportunity of huge proportions. In my humble opinion.
Dan Druff
22-02-2002, 09:25
Originally Posted by McD
Godley appears in the original graphic novel pretty much in the same role, although physically he and Abberline switch places for the film.
Sorry about that, while since I read it. He didn't stick in my mind obviously..Robbie Coltrane helps - fine actor.
Originally posted by McD
To be totally honest, I’m stuck at guessing how it could have been any worse! It was truly awful – especially compared to the possibilities in the source material.
Its strange how opinions differ. I went with a mate of mine who's big into this particular era (he's working on a screenplay about Springheeled Jack). He's mad into horror movies, hammer and classic black & whites, and also a huge fan of Alan Moore. He recommended me to buy the graphic novel (after I got him into Watchmen). He absolutely loved From Hell. He is quite the critic, he walked out of Pearl Harbor (then again who didn't). But he has seen From Hell twice. Personally I couldn't see much wrong with the movie. I thought the Hughes Bros. did an admirable job. I will be getting this on DVD, loved it.
BTW:
Following months of rumors, fervent hoping and negotiations, Sean Connery has signed on to the big screen version of Alan Moore’s comic book LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN. As reported a while back, Steve Norrington has been set to direct from a script by James Robinson.
What’s more, Connery will also be in at least one sequel, should one arise.
For those who haven’t read it, GENTLEMEN tells the story of a Superfriends type team put together by Queen Victoria in the 1800s, made up of such genre luminaries as Dr. Jekyll, Allan Quartermain and Captain Nemo.
My mate won't be too happy. He loved the graphic novel, but loathes Sean Connery! Mixed blessings for him then..
Dear Mr Echo
04-03-2002, 21:03
Originally posted by Mike
"Murder by Decree" did the whole Stephen Knight theory with a lot more conviction I thought.
Ian Holm acted everybody else off screen, Robbie Coltrane played the same role he always plays in American movies, Johnny Depp and Heather Graham were adequate but have both been much better elsewhere.
I thought this was a big comedown after the superb "Dead Presidents".
I have to agree with pretty much everything Mike says here (haven't seen Dead Presidents though).
Having a little knowledge of the various Ripper theories (as many people do - particularly the one used as a basis here) rendered the whodunnit aspect redundant. Sounds to me like the approach taken by the novel would have worked infinitely better - especially given Ian Holm's ability.
Anyone else think the very final scene was some sort of homage to Blue Velvet?
have to agree with a lot of the comments...this film was boring...yawn yawn....No tension and next to no gore !
But hey tahts what opinions are about...
If you've saw Murder by Decree.....dont waste your time with this ....MBD is far superior.....
up - to save me and Dan Druff cut-and-pasting. :)
Dan Druff
07-05-2002, 16:21
Originally posted by McD
up - to save me and Dan Druff cut-and-pasting. :)
Yeah its all been debated already..no need to open the old wounds so to speak. It is unusual though that 2 people can disagree so strongly about the same movie. Interesting.
I just felt it was a golden opportunity to make something truly special - and it was missed.
That said, as much as I love The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I think the movie makers have been very clear that they have bought the concept, as opposed to the original graphic novel. And quite frankly, they're right. The original six parter doesn't look like a perfect template for a movie, far from it, as good as it is. Unlike From Hell which, barring some essential condensing (esp Chap Four!), was ready to go!
Dan Druff
07-05-2002, 16:39
Originally posted by McD
I just felt it was a golden opportunity to make something truly special - and it was missed.
I felt this especially after viewing Judge Dredd and numerous others. In fact in 90% if cases I have to 'make do' with the film-makers compromises. But in the case of From Hell, considering the size and background of the piece, the squalor and harshness of life in Victorian London was well brought across as per the etch-style art of the graphic novel. the atmosphere and tone was conveyed even of all the ideas weren't, and in cinematic terms that is gold.
Very boring. Nothing new. The story had been told before and there was no tension. It was also obvious who the ripper was as soon as he spoke. As for Johnny Depp's cockney accent, well the less said the better. I almost thought it was Dick Van Dyke.
3/10
Cirrus888
09-05-2002, 14:50
Yeah I agree with the negative comments above ... although polished there was nothing here you ain't seen or heard before.
Murder mysteries are hard to do simply because they have been done a thousand times no matter how you dress it up. The ending was ok though but the last 5 mins does not save the movie.
I watched the From Hell DVD earlier this evening, and I have to agree with the negative comments. I found the novel thouroughly engrossing, but this film adaption was just tedious.
watched the first hour and found it to a decent film then the disc froze? anyway watched the rest at work.Very atmospheric but why cast Depp he is a s***e actor little better than Keanu Reeves even Heather Graham tried hard ....then the romantic bit.I know its only entertainment but this was very silly.
The hughes brothers provided a superb looking movie stunning sets etc only to throw it away with a crap cast.
The plot was little more than a re-hash of the TV series with Michael Caine so nowt new there did'nt take too much grey matter to recognize that voice.
Wasted opportunity,still quit entertaining.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.