Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

slightlymad22 Continuing my plan to watch every Johnny Depp movie in order, I come to From Hell.I have always liked this one, and find it enjoyable. Depp is in top form, Robbie Coltrane is always reliable, Ian Holm hams it up brilliantly and the under rated Paul Rhys is as solid as ever. That man should have had a much bigger career. If there is one criticism of the cast it is Heather Graham. Ignoring her accent, she is simply too attractive!! I can't imagine a single punter who would pay for sex with any of the other prostitutes, when Graham's Mary Kelly was about!! Dark, brooding and full of intense atmosphere, I usually revisit this every couple of years. From Hell grossed $31 million the domestic box office to end 2001 as the 75th highest grossing movie of the year.Following the high of Sleepy Hollow $101 mill (21st) Depp's more mainstream movies were headed in the wrong direction. Chocolat $71 mill (32nd) Blow $52 mill (47th) From Hell $31 mill (75th)His next movie released changed everything.

DeuceWild_77 "From Hell" was loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, but could have been just a remake of "Murder by Decree" ('79), because both of the movies covered the same view / conspiracy theory on the Jack the Ripper's hideous killing spree and his true identity and motivations. The major difference is that in "Murder by Decree", the screenwriters used the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creations, Sherlock Holmes (played by Christopher Plummer) and Dr.Watson (played by James Mason) to hunt Jack the Ripper, but in terms of story / plot is basically the same, except that the 1979 Bob Clark's directed film have, in fact, a heart and soul and substance over style, which "From Hell" severely, lacks.The Hughes Bros. came up with a flashy adaptation of the Ripper case, turning one of the greatest unsolved mysteries from the XIX century into a computer game with the player controlling Depp's character who wanders through the movie in a sleepwalking mode, being as inefficient as his Freemason superior, played by Ian Richardson, accused him to be.The script is too predictable, not offering any layers or creative sub- plots, it's 'filmsy', everything appears or happens in the right moment in time to help the plot to move forward (can we even count the 'Deus ex machina' resolutions used, without being bored at it ?).In the technical level, the movie scores as the production / art design, sets and costumes are good in the invocation of the Victorian Era and the gloomy cinematography is competently crafted.In terms of acting, this kind of low life Inspector, addicted to opium, absinthe and laudanum, was tailor made to suit perfectly the Johnny Depp persona, even if his moody performance was too lifeless to carry on the movie. Heather Graham is attractive and likable as Mary Kelly, but she lacks acting chops. The supporting players did better with Robbie Coltrane elevating the scenes with Depp (almost stealing them from him) and Ian Holm, as always, was dementedly fabulous as the main villain. The virtually unknown actresses playing the ill-fated prostitutes (including the late British actress, Katrin Cartlidge as Dark Annie) were very good, especially in the dialect & the authenticity.In short, "From Hell" is nice to look at, a visually engaging film, but unfortunately, even with all the style in the world, if it lacks substance and competent storytelling, it fails to achieve.Perhaps this kind of gloomy "comic book movie" works better in fantasyland such as in the case of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", which was a critical and box office failure, but at least remained out of a "based on a real life case" and was just a dark adventure / fantasy escapism.It worth a watch in a rainy Sunday afternoon, but nothing sort of memorable or a future cult-classic in the genre, if you're a fan of this take on the Jack the Ripper's true identity and motivations, there are far better movies covering the same premise, like the above mentioned: "Murder by Decree" ('79) or the earlier: "A Study in Terror" ('65) starring John Neville as Sherlock Holmes & Donald Houston as Dr. Watson and featuring an early appearance on-screen by Dame Judi Dench.

sol- Hoping to uncover the motives of Jack the Ripper, a London policeman enlists the help of a prostitute of this fanciful take on the historical murderer whose identity remains a mystery still today. The film is atmospherically shot by the reliable Peter Deming and there are some neat stylistic touches such as time lapse night to day sequence as the police discover one victim's body. Generally speaking though, this is a bit of a lacklustre affair. The film's explanation of the Ripper murders as a part of an elaborate conspiracy to hush local prostitutes never quite rings true. It is almost fascinatingly twisted enough for the lack of credibility not to matter, however, the fact that Johnny Depp's protagonist uncovers the conspiracy through clairvoyance and intuition rather than actual detective work makes it hard to buy into. Imagine if Kevin Costner's character in 'JFK' used his dreams to argue against Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone and you would not be far off. The film is additionally cheapened by a romance developing between Depp and Heather Graham, cast as the prostitute who helps him. Not only does their romance do little to further the tale, the pair have few sparks between them, with each balancing Victorian accents not helping matters in the slightest. Small moments of 'From Hell' certainly work, such as Joseph Merrick making an unexpected appearance and the coins on the eyes myth, but as far as Jack the Ripper stories are concerned, 'Time After Time' and 'Murder by Decree' are far preferable motion pictures.

ironhorse_iv During the fall of 1888, a series of five brutal murders shocks Victorian London. The victims, all poor female prostitutes, are murdered and then mutilated, by an unidentified serial killer, only known to the public, as Jack the Ripper. It became known as the White Chapel Murders. Ever since then, the unsolved mystery of the identity of the killer has been intrigue, both historians, scholars, and normal people for over a century now. It seems like everybody has a theory on who is the killer. One of those people, was writer Alan Moore. Taking its name from a letter, supposedly sent by the killer to the White Chapel Vigilance Committee, Alan Moore wrote the graphic novel 'From Hell' from 1989 to 1996 with cartoonist, Eddie Campbell. He wrote that the murders were part of a conspiracy to conceal the birth of an illegitimate royal baby fathered by then-Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (Mark Dexter). While, this plot sound realistic interesting. It's fictional as hell. Also, their 'Royal Conspiracy' theory wasn't that original. In truth, the 'Royal Conspiracy" theory, was taken from author, Stephen Knight's 1976's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' book. Unfortunately, this book is not a historically accurate one. It's riddled with historical errors, coincidences, and fabrications. Like the book, the film doesn't know that in real life, that the royal scandal was more about the prince's hidden homosexual than his fathering of an illegitimate son. Nor did they knew that the Freemasons at the time was nearly powerless, due to the height of anti-masonry due to mobile economically during the Industrial Revolution, plus the weakening of longstanding family and community ties. It doesn't help, that film directed by the Hughes Brother is only a loose adaptation of the comic, often taking a different approach. While, I did like the building on the mystery & allowing the police inspector, Fredrick Abberline (Johnny Depp) to be the main character. Others things about the film kinda irritate me. I hate that the huge changes, involving the character of painter, Walter Sickert (Max Dexter). The idea that Sickert and the Prince are the same person is a bit much. Very off-putting, seeing how way different, these two men were in real-life. Plus, the killer's depth is reduced and much of the sophistical themes were also lost. Another thing, the idea of mixing the two characters of Inspector Frederick Abberline with fraudulent psychic, Robert James Lees into one, was a bit jarring. It doesn't make sense that he would be the head of the police department with such clairvoyant views. Another thing, the radical changes to Abberline from an older, gritty overweight conservative detective to a young drug addict inspector was just as puzzling. What type of police would allow a known-opium user to be the head of it!? I have to say; while Johnny Depp is a fine actor, and was alright in the role; I thought, his on-screen American Boy Scout good-looks and lack of British accent was a bit distracting. Also, the force love story between him and the lead prostitute, Mary Kelley (Heather Graham) was just as improbably. Heather Graham is alright, but it's nothing to write about. The supporting cast is also great, the women that play the victims, were memorable, however, it's Ian Holms as Sir William Gull & Robbie Coltrane as Sergeant Peter Godley that steals the movie, even if they were a bit hammy. From Hell is also one of the most beautifully atmospheric and visually gruesome period films about that era. In many ways, the film was very true to life, particularly in its recreation of Whitechapel and its portrayal of the everyday lives of its inhabitants. I really did felt like I step back into the haunting, yet wonderful world of Victorian England. It's so authentic. I even like the cameo of the Elephant Man, himself; John Merrick (Anthony Parker). The make-up work is also decent. I like how well, the gore effects look. The music of Trevor Jones was just as haunting. Overall: While, this movie does have some faults, it really didn't hurt the film, too much. I still somewhat enjoy the film. I have to say, the movie wasn't as predictable as some critics think it is. While, the order and names of the victims are well-known, the film still have time to show some twist and turns with the story. Yet, the film should certainly not be viewed as an authentic representation of the Ripper crimes as a whole. Still, the film serves as a good introduction to new viewers to the case and bring a new unique spin to those who know its history. It's fictional as hell, but entertaining.