From Hell vs. Jack the Ripper (1988)

[kensei]

But I do like both, however, I tend to watch the 1988 film a lot more these days. Although the acting can be a little over the top at times, I love Caine's performance at the end when they cover up the case.

Me too! As Warren is yelling at him, basically telling him to sit down and shut up and here's what is going to happen, Caine is nearly in tears, thinking, "You've got to be kidding me-- I broke my back solving this damned thing and you're telling me it's all for nothing?!" I get into it with him emotionally every time I watch it.

[Yimmit]

Hey Kensei!

That's exactly the bit I was talking about - he is practically crying!! And it just hightens the emotion, severity and magnitude that these crimes actually hold. And indeed, as portrayed in the film, biggest cover up in history! lol.

[Writerboy]

I couldn't resist chipping in on this because I honestly think the Caine Jack the Ripper is one of the worst pieces of television drama I have ever seen. David Wickes simply cannot write dialogue, and his characterisation gets as far as "give him a drink problem", one that the character seems to have no problem with at all, apart from a few people s******ing aboout it, he seems to get the job done without fail. The first hour of it, enlivened by a dreadfully hammy pub fight, just staggers me: Susan George as Catherone Eddows appears to be appearing in a children's panto and Lysette Anthony is the most groomed East End prostitute that ever lived. The Jekyll and Hyde sequences are alarming but have nothing to do with the story no matter how hard they pretend to be. The whole thing is also just so POMPOUS, those voice overs making us think this is the definitive answer. Aberline at one point does a list of suspects, based purely on who he has bumped into so far in the programme. Great detective that! And Caine's "who are you, you bastard?" is cringe city. Don't even get me started on that awful journalist and Jane Seymour's role as the glamour interest. Its the worst kind of American mini series. The original version with Barry Foster, now that could have been interesting.

From Hell I thought was a right load of old rubbish but at least it was done more competently than the Caine one, even if the streets and the people walking them still look ridiculously clean. If you forget about the realities the film is taking liberties with its a so so drama I think.

[Christine1932]

Hello. If any of you are a fan of Ripper films, you'll know there quite a few things in common with the 1988 miniseries and the Hollywood motion picture, both in plot and characters, though there are considerale differences in storyline, characters, and length. What I wanted to get is everyone's opinion on which one is better. Also, specifically, which actor portrayed their character better in both movies. Here is the list below:

Frederick Abberline- Johnny Depp or Michael Caine

Sir William Gull/Jack the Ripper- Ian Holm or Ray McAnally

Sergeant Peter/George Godley-Robbie Coltrane or Lewis Collins

John Netley-Jason Flemyng or George Sweeney

Sir Charles Warren-Ian Richardson or Hugh Fraser

George Lusk-Vincent Franklin or Michael Gothard

Catherine Eddowes-Lesley Sharp or Susan George

Mary Kelly-Heather Graham or Lysette Anthony


Let me know which you like better, and why. And also, tell me why you think which movie is better in your opinion. I look forward to hearing back from you.

I like 1988 version better, although From Hell has it´s merits. Of course theory of Gull as the Ripper belongs in the sewers of Whitechapel, so does "psychology" in 1988 film. And I prefer Mary Kelly and Susan George, not because they are more accurate, but simply because I love their clothes!

[Stewart P Evans]

Entertainment

Both films are more about entertainment than historical accuracy. Here's me on set with Ian Holm.

[Adam Went]

1988 is definitely the better of the two. It has better graphics, better storyline, better actors, and is probably marginally more historically accurate than From Hell as well. Michael Caine is one of my favourite actors and he did a brilliant job in the film. Both movies are inaccurate in portraying the general appearance of the women and their surroundings. You could eat your dinner off the streets they had in the movies.

The thing is that these films aren't made with Ripperologists in mind, they have to be appealing to the masses and therefore the storylines need to be embellished or made up altogether. If a Ripper film was made following nothing but the known facts of the case, we might watch it, but not many others would!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Hunter]

As a Civil War re-enactor and historian, I remember the same thing happening with the PBS series on that subject. Many inaccuracies were pointed out by my peers but I found that in the long run, it sparked an interest in the subject to a new generation of followers and the ranks of living historians swelled as a result; where the 'newbies' could then be exposed to the truth.

The interest in JTR works the same way. If one endeavors to go beyond a passing interest, they will subsequently learn the facts, no matter what the initial catalyst might have been.

Nice photo Stewart. Bet you ain't aged a bit.

[spyglass]

HI all !
Im sure we have had this debate before, and you have all been comparing the wrong two films.
You should be comparing "From Hell" with the much better "Murder by Decree".
The only simularitys between "from Hell" and "Jack the Ripper" mini series, was the murderer.
P.S. Alan Moore is a genius!!

[Adam Went]

Hunter:

Yes, they certainly do spark interest, but unfortunately sometimes the wrong kind of interest! Some people think that they are now an expert on the case just because they've been a movie or two about it, and think that what's said in the movies is infact the truth of what happened. Thus theories like the Royals conspiracy live on.

So for that, we have to love and loath these films at the same time....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Steven Russell]

I think Hunter is right. A recent thread on this site asked members how they had first become interested in the case. A large proportion of the replies mentioned The Final Solution or other, including filmic, treatments of the masonic / royal conspiracy theory. Few if any professed to still holding serious views as to the validity of this theory, but all (obviously as they are members here) retain an interest in the case.

I dare bet that many of those who have made important discoveries in this case owe their original interest to factually dubious books, films, and TV shows.

And, let's not forget that movies, unlike documentaries, are made to entertain and draw people to the box office first and foremost. Nothing wrong with that. Imagine if films based on historical events were all required to stick rigidly to established facts. "Well, nobody really knows" is not particularly entertaining.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[kensei]

Alan Moore is indeed a genius when it comes to dramatic storytelling in graphic novels like "From Hell" and "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" and in any number of other superhero stories he has done, but I doubt that even he takes the royal conspiracy theory seriously (and by the way, I think he really needs to relax a little as to his hatred of any and all movies that end up being made from his work).

The trend towards movies "based on true stories" now has me worried with the soon to be released Russel Crowe "Robin Hood." Please, I pray, not another Clive Owen "King Arthur," or especially another Kevin Costner "Robin Hood- Prince of Thieves." I want to see an accurate depiction of the legend. I don't care that the legend is in dispute. Robin needs to die by poisoning at the end and fire one last arrow that marks his gravesite. Let's make it like "Braveheart," which for gods' sake won Oscars! There were details of history in dispute on that too, right? But it was done so right!

Jack the Ripper was so much more recent and with so much detail documented beyond dispute. Surely some combination of writer and director should be able to put something together using their own money and avoiding the red tape of the big studios that want to change everything. Or maybe I'm imagining things.

[Hunter]

Hunter:

Yes, they certainly do spark interest, but unfortunately sometimes the wrong kind of interest! Some people think that they are now an expert on the case just because they've been a movie or two about it, and think that what's said in the movies is infact the truth of what happened. Thus theories like the Royals conspiracy live on.

So for that, we have to love and loath these films at the same time....
.

Yes indeed, Adam. We've had people come on the field and want to be a general right off the bat; having no clue as to drill or proper safety... let alone their sometimes crazy uniforms. But, by and large, those that do want to learn, stay and assimilate with the others. Those that don't fall out fairly quickly and go on to hinder other people with their ego.

Or they write a book. LOL

[elleryqueen74]

Everything about the 1988 mini series was better than From Hell, that's all there is to say about that.

Murder by Decree, now there is a movie I haven't seen in forever...

[Flagg]

I prefer JtR 88. Depp, while gifted, just didn't convince me he was Abberline. The film had its cheezy moments, but still leagues ahead of From Hell.

Ian Holm was a good villain but enough picking on Gull. Heather Graham was awful. Honestly, it should have stayed a graphic novel.

I will say I don't like Abberline being portrayed as a substance abuser. I can understand it, though. It makes him more interesting, as the real man was not that exciting.