|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
kat
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 2:32 pm: |       |
its a movie - dats the way i look at it - although im only 15 n into the history of jtr, some was researched well but the main plot was silly putting it againest the other ripper 'plots'. i thought johnny depp was great though, overall looking at it as fiction its a great film. |
Mark Groak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 4:15 pm: | |
I really liked From Hell. It's fiction clearly but taken on its merits as a film I thought it was atmospheric and visually brilliant. I didn't even mind Johnny 'Dick Van Dyke' Depp's accent! |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 694
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
I agree that the film is very well done visually, and it is indeed atmospheric. I also think it has some historical accuracy. But as far as the plot is concerned, I wouldn't even rate it as acceptable fiction. But here we are merely talking taste, I believe.
Now when I come to think of it, I wonder, wasn't also Rumbelow connected to the film as consultant? Think I read it somewhere...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Kris Law
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:53 am: | |
I love how at the end Abberline gets knocked out, then wakes up in time for Jack to just start killing "mary kelly" and begins to run to save her, beginning his chase around 4 in the moring i assume, and arriving at the scene of the crime around one in the afternoon.
what, did he stop off for a pint on the way?
Kris
p.s. - i don't think they were implying that Abberline died in 1888 though, if you look closely when he is dead some of the hair at his temples is grey, so my guess is around 1900. |
Hatter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 15, 2003 - 5:07 pm: | |
My issue with this film isn't so much the historical inaccuracy, but with the complete lack of respect for the source material. The graphic novel told an excellent story with a great deal of reverence for historical accuracy. The amount of research done by both writer and artist rivals that done by any of the well-known "ripperologists". Moore went to a great deal of trouble to inform the reader that this was a work of fiction, going so far as to take his work apart page by page to cite his research materials and point out which parts were created by him for story purposes. So much thought was put into the personality and motivations of Gull that one puts the book down with the impression that they have just seen the murders as they occurred. The book was a phenomenal piece of literature, and truly disturbing.
In my experience, 95% of the people who read the book didn't understand it at all. Moore's story was completely wasted on them. This seems to be the case with the makers of the film. Throwing away any part of the story that they felt "didn't work", they crafted a film that is indeed no better than any of the dozen exploitational Ripper films made. The few scenes that survived the book to film process stand only as evidence that none of the people involved were intelligent enough to understand the story that Moore told so brilliantly.
Hollywood strikes again. God forbid we have a story without a love interest between beautiful actors. This film was a horrfiying waste of time. |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 29
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 9:27 am: | |
I agree with you completely, except that the "love interest" between Abberline and Mary Kelly actually was in the graphic novel, although not quite to the degree they played it up in the movie.
But your point is totally correct, the Hughes Brothers biggest mistake, I think, was turning the movie into the classic "whodunnit?", where as Gull is laid out from the very beginning in the novel, which makes it more fascinating because you get much more character developement. To see Gull as a child, and to actually see his vision when he has his stroke all add up to the final product. |
Jeff Baldwin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 9:11 pm: | |
Personally I think the movie "From Hell" is 99% crap! It does a good job of depicting life in London's East End during the Ripper murders, but other than that, the movie is a complete joke. It was basically a vehicle for johnny Depp's career, that's all. Patrica Cornwell's book on the Ripper/ Walter Sickert is excellent and offers probably the best solution to the whole Ripper case. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 503
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 12:31 pm: | |
Hi jeff,
I Would agree somewhat, that the movie, could have been a darn sight better, but I would say mayby 66 per cent [to use your term ] crap
The atmospheric shots were good, and the sound, but Johnny Depps casting as Abberline was poor.
Regarding P. cornwalls book being excellent, I Disagree, My opinion is she met a police official whilst visiting scotland yard, asked him any good unsolved murders that are intresting, she was told 'How about our imfamous Jack'.
Thats a great idea, is there any people that are on the suspect list that are not used a lot.
Walter Sickert, was suspected briefly.
'Gee that sounds good, he sounds like the killer to me'
The result is her work 'Portrait of a killer'
That just about sums it up Im Afraid Jeff.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 898
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 5:17 pm: | |
You're absolutely right, Richard, both regarding the movie and Cornwell's book -- although I would say that the movie is 75--80% crap.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Nele
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
You don't know how Abberline looked so why is Johnny Depp then too hollywoodish? You don't look at an actor his status en then you think: Does he fit in the picture? I just look how an actor acts and at his emotions. But I found the end very boring and not interesting. Is here somebody who thinks to know who jack the ripper is? Please tell me! (I'm from Belgium so I'm sorry if my english was bad.)
Nele. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 12:27 am: | |
HI Nele I think that there are drawings of Abberline and he was a much heavier man then Depp. I dont think that people are so upset with how Depp looks in the movie. I think that they are upset with how the hughes brothers depict him in the movie. I think alot of people have different theories on who the ripper may be. Remember there are no wrong theories because there is no definite answer to who Jack is. I think Dr. Tumblety is a good choice you can read about him on the casebook suspect page but there are others such as George Chapman,Joe Barnett and Kosminski. Take care CB |
Elise Soeder
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 17, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
Alrighty... I'm new to all this, the message board and the jack the ripper case to some extent. But the reason I'm looking into it is because of the movie From Hell. Looking at it from the perspective of someone who deeply appreciates the "art" (if you will) of movies, this was an excellent film. And personally, I think Johnny D. is an excellent actor and did a brilliant job. As for the movie makers... their job is to focus on what the audience wants to see, and yes, a lot of times, some pieces of what was from the books have to hit the editing room floor. Things like that happen. As movie makers, they think "Okay, so we have the male attention with the whole murder thing... what about the females? Wait a second... we have Johnny Depp." Thats why his thingy with Mary Kelly is enlarged. And who can blame them? I enjoyed it greatly.  The film is very beautiful, asthetically speaking, as well. It has a bit of an European feel to it. Yeah, if you're a complete expert on the Ripper case, ye might not like it because you couldn't deal with the stuff they "didn't know" and you did. But if you rent (or recieve as a present as I did) the movie just out of curiosity, or to get introduced to the Ripper case, it's well worthwhile, becuase I learned a lot of stuff about suspects and the killings and such. And my guess is that once I have a bunch of Ripper knowledge, I'll look back and say, "Ya know what? That movie did it all. And it rocked."
~Elise
PS: Look at some pics of the victims, then look at the characters in the movie... You'll be amazed at the similarities. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 19, 2004 - 6:23 pm: | |
I agree with some of what you are saying when makeing a movie you have to appeal to an audience. The movie from Hell is based on the graphic novel which his told through William Gulls perspective but it was felt that audiences would not attend the movie were the lead charactor was the killer. They decided to make Abberline the lead. Were I diagree with you is I dont think you have to change history in order to make a good movie. The thing with Kelly was not enlarged by the Huges brthers. It never existed. I did not mind the use of the royal conspiracy.That theory is as good as any other and it is a good story but what I did not like and would not like in any movie that is based on a true story. Is the total misrepresentation of an actual historical person as Abberline was. I am not talking about the use of Depp. I am sure haveing seen drawings of Abberline that he would be flatterd. I am refering to the reference of opium,visions and Abberline lived well into his 80s. I feel when telling a true story you should try to be as acurate as possible or you might as well write fiction. I agree the dvd extras are nice and the ripper documentary with Stuart Evans is interesting. I thought the Hughes brothers were very acurate as far as reconstructing the murder scenes and I do own a copy of the movie. If you support Gull as the ripper then I recomend the movie Jack The Ripper with Mickael Cain. Thanks for your response. Take care. CB  |
me
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
This film is what got me interested in the whole Ripper thing. I rented it for a night when I was feeling like crap and thought Johnny Depp might make me feel better. Of course this film had me right back up again and I watched it twice that night. Knowing absolutely nothing at the time except Jack the Ripper killed some people a long time ago, this film was brilliant. I now own it and know a lot more about the real events. It may not be historically accurate, but it is a great film in its own right and is responsible for my new found interest in the Ripper |
amy jayne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
hello ....i thought the movie was marv...apart from the end no point trying to show what might of happened ...plus if that did happen the blody clan was big enough surely toi god one person would have been caught........... |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hi,
Give me a budget , give me a crew, let me cast the actors, give me freedom from the censors, and we may then have a authentic film based on these murders, with actual words spoken beng relayed to the audience, that were reported to have been said at the time.
I would say it would be the most exciting horror film ever made.
But as that is a unrealistic request, we will be stuck with Hollywood productions filmed on location.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 7:41 pm: | |
Richard,
"Give me a budget , give me a crew, let me cast the actors, give me freedom from the censors, and we may then have a authentic film based on these murders, with actual words spoken beng relayed to the audience, that were reported to have been said at the time.
I would say it would be the most exciting horror film ever made."
OK. As long as it doesen't present Joseph Barnett in the title role.
However, I agree, that I can accept almost anything -- note that said almost -- in connection with the Ripper on film, as long as it is not produced in Hollywood.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Icon of Sin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 02, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Hey guys,
I loved the film, prolly in my top 20 favorite movies. It was extremely dark and artistic making it right up my alley and it has given me more interest in Jack the Ripper now.
Could have found someone better then Heather Graham for Mary Kelly though. Having her run around with a bunch of ugly prostitutes makes her being a prostitue very inconcievable.
Also that quate at the beginning of the movie. Was that really a quote from the ripper, or was that fiction as well, just wondering... thanks :D |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
I think someone should come out with a movie about some unknown guy, not a pre-determined suspect, who was responsible for all the killings and just follow him around in his footsteps between august and november 1888. that would be the scariest movie in my mind, if made well. his evading police, his motive, where he stayed between killings, even if it was all made-up, it would still be excellent as long as it didn't cross any of the evidence or suspects we currently have.
Chris 
|
Jack the Reaper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
Ohh, I must see that! I mean Jack the Ripper and Jhonney Depp in the same move! It's sutch a turn-on! 
Jack Le Mietitore |
Jack the Reaper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
I don't think I ever pointed out that I am a female.
-Jack Le Mietitore |
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
I saw the movie last night. I didn't find it very captivating. Alot of things were true to the real story, alot of things were completely different (ie. grape stalks at every murder scene, no Barnett in the picture, Abberline with Kelly some time before the murder, the circle of friends, etc). It was allright but I wouldn't reccommend it to anyone.
Chris
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 936
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Chris,
The way I see it, is that it's a good fictional story. There's no point looking for all the no-factual bits and that's not even including the accidental mistakes. For example, they called Hanbury Street, Hanover Street.
Sarah |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
No, it's not even a good fictional story. Even a fictional story must have some sort of credibility if it's going to work. "From Hell" doesen't work. It is just a ludicrous piece of garbage, as far as the story is concerned.
However, I do think it is beautifully made and looks quite expensive. But that is as far as I am prepared to go. For those who are seriously interested in the Ripper, I wouldn't recommend it. No way.
Shame on such good actors and on such good research efforts. I heard that Johnny Depp himself is a very devoted Ripper "fan", and he is said not to have been that pleased with how they chose to treat the subject either.
Only the fact that the production company chose parts of the ridiculous Royal Conspiracy story as a basis for the plot, should ban and disqualify the movie for all eternity.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 19, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
Hi, Glenn
I didn't care for the movie either, but I think the DVD is worth having for the extras. There's a good one with Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow--although whoever put the DVD together gets the victims mixed up and uses what looks to me like a screwed up map of Whitechapel. But I like the walk-through of Stewart's scrapbook. He's got a morgue photograph of Catherine Eddowes I've never seen anywhere else (the one of her propped against the wall).
The documentary is interspersed with some footage of Stephen Knight discussing his consipracy theory. I've never cared for his theory, but I do have a soft spot for Knight, probably because he died so young. As far as the history of Ripper studies go, Knight is an important figure because he was one of the first authors to get access to the police files (at least, I believe Knight has that distinction).
I wish they'd included a featurette on a tour of the real murder sites, as they appear today.
I also thought the feature about absinthe was absorbing.
I didn't know Depp (who I think is one of the best actors around) was a Ripper buff, or that he was displeased with the film.
Cheers,
Dave |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
