To everyone on here... what was your reaction when you first saw "From Hell"...

[Fisherman]

An old man ripper is just not scary

On the other hand, he must know somethin' (albeit he don't say nothin').

Faaaaar fetched, Robert - but me likes!

Keep you robes on!

Fisherman

[sepiae]

cringe'n'squirm-inducing

Hi,

I did watch the whole film [which might be a doubtful claim to pride], and it was basically ricocheting between facepalms and gut-cramps for me.

Not so much because of the inaccuracies as they concern history. That was to be expected, because
a) it was, no, it was supposed to be based on Moore's graphic novel, and that work should be viewed more in an anti-monarchy context, which
b) was known to me to sport the Royal conspiracy theory, and
c) it's a big star-, huge budget-, popcorn movie, whaddoyouexpect.
And I did enjoy Murder by Decree, despite it following the same redic premise.

Also not too much cringing about Abberline once more being portrayed as an addict [where ever this need might come from], although some. Made up for by Depp-acting in the end.

But contrary to the fimmakers' ad-claims, just about everything about this film is fake, feels fake, smells like fake, sounds fake.

Dialogue, very contrived.
Except for Buck's Row and Hanbury St. backyard locations not at all, as had been promised, authentic looking.
Story idiotic, nothing to do with following some basic streaks in Moore's work.
Worst, worst, worst of all:
Mary Kelly.
While the other women were at least presented somewhat looking the way their ragged lives would impose on them, Mary Kelly - her hair always perfect, makeup perfect, clothes beautiful, face rosy-dolly-pretty, and ah, wonderful, what a nice sweet sugar-OD happy ending in the cottage in Ireland, where the colours are always the nicest and brigthest.

And...
Ah, wotever...

Terrible film.

[Steadmund Brand]

I saw some of you mentioned other JTR movies, and while one of my favorites, "Murder by Decree" has been mentioned, no one has brought up "Time after Time"-- the only science-fiction take on this subject, and the best, in my opinion!

I love Time After Time... one of my favorite "Ripper" movies...which is why I cannot get too upset with historically inaccurate ripper movies....well, maybe I can.. as Time After Time never claims to be the "facts" anyway….I think my favorite portrayal of “Jack” was in the movie Deadly Advice….how wonderful if that were the real solution…no spoilers just in case people have not seen the film 

Steadmund Brand

[Robert]

An old man ripper is just not scary

On the other hand, he must know somethin' (albeit he don't say nothin').

[RockySullivan]

Should've been darker, way way dirtier & grimier. An old man ripper is just not scary and yes I share your sentiment sdreid...keep the mystery alive it's what makes it compelling. Even show the rippers face in the murder scenes and show how disgusting the murders were but don't give the ripper name. That would be scary

[Harmonica]

I was disappointed to see it deviate along the royal conspiracy lines. And from a creative point of view, I thought it was really poor. Bad acting, bad dialogue, very clunky handling. I'm still waiting for a proper JTR film.

[sdreid]

I liked the atmosphere and some of the cinematography but that's about it. The story was sorta lame, not to mention inaccurate. They must have hired Depp before they found out that he couldn't do a decent British accent.

My opinion - never "solve" an unsolved case! I know they think the audience won't be satisfied if things are left up in the air but I don't agree. Do a solved case or fictional movie if you want a tidy conclusion.

[Pcdunn]

I saw some of you mentioned other JTR movies, and while one of my favorites, "Murder by Decree" has been mentioned, no one has brought up "Time after Time"-- the only science-fiction take on this subject, and the best, in my opinion!

[martin wilson]

Tales from Development Hell by David Hughes is an excellent primer in understanding the process of getting script to screen, as the quote says "this script is perfect, how can we change it?"
All the best.

[Pcdunn]

Howdy y'all
I was wondering if someone could or maybe already has compiled a list comparing what 'From Hell' has and what the facts really are.

But a comparison list between the facts and what the film make of the facts i think would be very interesting.

I would recommend the Appendix of Chapter notes in the 2005 edition of "From Hell" as Moore goes through everything, and is excellent at pointing out what is factual, what is purely from his imagination, etc. Moore's novel is far more attentive to the case, has incidents in the right order, provides all the sightings of Long Liz and her various male escorts, etc., etc. Campbell has drawn the characters to resemble their real-life originals, and his backgrounds are great. There's no such thing as a drug-addicted Abberline in the graphic novel, for instance. Hollywood did a disservice to everyone by optioning this book for screen treatment.

[Pcdunn]

The movie was on television and I watched it briefly but I was curious what people on here thought of the movie when they first saw it in theaters or video?

I'm almost certain this question has been asked so I'm sorry.

I did see this movie first run in the theater, and it was interesting from a dramatic point of view. My co-author (of fan fiction) and I were familiar with the JtR cases to a degree, having read a number of books and seen some documentaries and fictional films. We knew enough to know Johhny Depp didn't look very much at all like the real Abberline, for instance.

What I didn't know at the time was this movie was more of a loose adaptation of the graphic novel "From Hell: being a melodrama in sixteen scenes" by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell than it was of the Knight book about the royal conspiracy. (I have recently read the graphic novel, and absolutely loved it! I do recommend it to anyone looking for an engrossing story set in Whitechapel, although Freemasons might not enjoy it.)

The movie was pretty good, although violent. I remember at our theater a man walked his teenage daughter out after about ten minutes of the "daughters of joy" plying their business in the beginning of the film. Depp may have been a idol to the high-school girls at the time, but "From Hell" was not suitable for all ages!

[Natasha]

Some of the artistic/special effects were good, especially that of the elephant man, though having said that there were elements that looked a bit cheap. I think they could have made the picture look a bit more atmospheric, like for example misty and a bit dingy. The music definitely gave the chill factor, especially the tune played on the gramophone.

It was defo ruined by Depp & Graham. I don't think he's the best actor, the only film he was good in was Edward Scissorhands. As for Graham, well I don't know how she got the part.
Ian Holm (gull) I think he is underestimated and doesn't really get the recognition he deserves. He was good. Katrin Cartlidge (Chapman), Susan Lynch (Stride) those two defo look the part to play Victorian women.

As to the story line, well it's a bit worn. I know it doesn't reflect all the details accurately, but it's not strictly a bio pic, and of course they could have put a different spin on it, but it's not the worst ripper film I've seen.

[Penhalion]

I agree with pretty much what everyone has said- potential for a great movie sadly misused.

I think I yelled the loudest when 'Abberline' lit the sugar cube on fire to add to his absinthe. Poser!!!! (Sure, burn the sugar if you want to ruin a perfectly good glass of absinthe......geez....)

[The Good Michael]

I didn't know it was based on a graphic novel. I thought it was trying to be a serious movie, and with Heather Graham playing Kelly, I didn't want to watch it. I like her, but I thought she would be far too attractive to play Kelly. Now that I know it's based on a work of fiction, I should probably watch it.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

I remember being really excited about the film, having been a huge fan of the Graphic novel...I knew the Graphic novel was lets just say, not really historically accurate , so I had no doubt the film would be way off as well, but hoped it would be fun, like the book...I went to see it opening night (with a friend who is a big Alan Moore fan but knew next to nothing of the history of the case).. We both left the theater disgusted with what we saw....neither of us felt it did the book justice at all (not to mention the history.. but as I said... I didn't think it would anyway.. so i wasn't upset about that, that part was expected)...

I ended up buying the 2 disk DVD version (just for the hidden features (in case you don't know 'Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution' (complete) is a hidden Easter egg on the DVD... I got it used for next to nothing so was worth it)..anyway, thinking I would never watch the movie itself again...then a friend of mine saw it on my shelf and said.. Oh I wanted to see that... can we watch it? And I did... this time, I just watched it as a film... not as a film based on the novel...or as a historian.. but just as fluff entertainment... and I was actually surprised.. I kind of enjoyed it (Depp, whom I usually really like is still just phoning in his role... and Graham.. well she is nice to look at anyway) but some of the performances were quite good, Ian Holm was amazing ( even though Nigel Hawthorne.. who was supposed to play the role, but sadly died before may have even made the film better)....and the sets are quite nice.. and there is a decent atmosphere, and a few stunning shots.... overall... as a film.. it wasn’t bad at all...but as piece of history.. garbage.

Steadmund Brand

"someday men will look back and say that I gave birth to the 20th century"


just that quote alone at the beginning of the movie!

As Bob Hinton said, you need to put out of your head the historical part.

IMHO its a masterpiece of modern suspense/ thriller.

and gotta love the bittersweet ending! Mary escapes back to Ireland, but abberline dies, not to be reunited.