From Hell (2001) User Reviews (586)

Darkly stylish--not based on reality.

[keenan-1 · 8/10 · 17 May 2004]

The best thing about an enduring mystery is that people can feel free to take all sorts of liberties with the facts and create interesting "what if" scenarios. FROM HELL is a perfect example. For the record, the theory behind the killings is pretty much right out of JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL SOLUTION by Stephen Knight, and it's been pretty well discredited since it first came out twenty years ago, even though it makes a hell of an entertaining piece of fiction.

I completely discount any criticisms of the movie where people say "it didn't happen that way". Of course it didn't; that's why this is a fictional film and not a documentary. It's very loosely based on the Alan Moore graphic novel, and about all it retains of it is the Duke of Clarence theory and the stylish look of the architecture. It's enough to make the film beautiful to watch.

Yes, I know that four of the five victims of Jack the Ripper were women in their late 40's, which on the streets of Victorian London would mean that they would resemble crones in their late 60's or early 70's. Just try to make that fly past a Hollywood studio boss; the casting at least had women who looked fairly human rather than like fallen glamour girls. I've read a couple of comments disparaging the accents. Actually, Cockney accents were the norm in the street because people tried to blend in and often weren't eager to advertise Scottish or Irish origins.

I call special attention to the performance of Jason Flemyng in the role of Netley, the coachman, arguably the most fascinating and believable character in the whole production. Most of his best scenes ended up on the cutting room floor, unfortunately, and yet he still manages to pull the movie together into a cohesive whole just by his presence. (It must have been a heck of a fun role to play!) As well, Sir Ian Holm deserves special mention for stepping in when the original choice for his role, Sir Nigel Hawthorne, tragically became ill and died just before the film went into production. I have never seen Sir Ian in any role that I didn't find completely believable, and that ranges all the way from KING LEAR to his role in ALIEN, for heaven's sake.

My interest in the whole Jack the Ripper case has been reawakened thanks to this movie, and I'm trying to hunt down a copy of Alan Moore's graphic novel (which is very difficult to find). No, it's not even close to an approximation of what really happened; nobody will ever know the truth, Patricia Cornwell's arrogant claims notwithstanding. It's still worth renting, if only for the beautifully ominous score and the fascinating transformation of Prague into Victorian London. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Mixed Feelings...

[edm-the_red · 7/10 · 1 November 2013]

I'm pretty much a fan of Johnny Depp, as I usually appreciate his performance regardless of my ultimate opinion of the movie itself. Sleepy Hollow was a masterful re-envisioning of the classic story of Ichabod Crane, featuring a nice blend of mystery & horror. From Hell seemed like a natural extension of this character archetype, with a loosely-based historical inspiration, adding weight to the horrific scenarios that it depicts. With that in mind, I decided to check it out.

There are many things that are done right in this movie, number one being the atmosphere. London is gray, rainy, & dark, and its desperate citizens reflect this foreboding setting well. The women whore themselves out for an extra cent, while the men retain control through intimidation & violence. Racial tensions, corrupt officials, and secret societies complicate the picture, and the actors in their elaborate costumes capture the unrest perfectly. As the film is a work of historical fiction, it takes liberties in the portrayal of certain events/facts, but only for the purpose of increasing the dramatic potential of the plot. In fact, these little deviations in historical accuracy felt very creative, and mostly fit in with the ambiguous nature of one the most infamous unsolved mysteries.

The faults, while noticeable, are not disqualifying. The characters are played well, despite being mostly unremarkable to begin with. Depp's Inspector Abberline is likable, though his behavior is inconsistent. As an opium addict, he seems content to waste away his life in an altered state, yet jumps into action without hesitation, and utterly dedicates himself to risk life and limb tracking down a vicious serial killer & sifting through the lies that keep him so elusive. This also serves to make his relationship with Heather Graham, as the female lead, seem slightly artificial. The visionary, opium-induced haze that enables him to keep pace with the killer was an interesting touch, but wasn't utilized to its full potential, in my opinion. Also, the killer's character is not developed enough, and so comes across as "cartoonishly" scary, lacking in realism.

Ultimately, this is a tense thriller that will captivate your attention, with a unique interpretation of the Jack the Ripper mythos.

A stylish film, but has little to offer.

[phil0011 · 7/10 · 14 August 2003]

A dark and meticulous tale, based around the murders of Jack the Ripper in Whitechapel, London. The films look is no more than what you would expect from a one based on Jack the Ripper. Dark shadows loom over the characters as the satanic nature of The Ripper is emphasised. It's such an intriguing story and character that every time I watch a film based on this story I come away slightly disappointed. This time was no exception. While the acting was good (minus some quite unconvincing cockney accents - Heather Graham and Johnny Depp, I'm talking to you) and the direction assured, the script seemed a little reserved. There was no great insight into any of the characters, and much of it played out like a simple murder mystery. But this didn't stop me from enjoying the 120 or so minutes.

Why did I enjoy this film, I hear you ask? For a start, the direction was superb - the streets of London looked grimy, while the `unfortunates' (i.e., prostitutes) wandered around in squalor awaiting their fate. This produced a wonderful atmosphere, creating murder scenes that were much more terrifying and shocking (and very gruesome). Johnny Depp's performance (as the detective Abberline), as always, was hugely enjoyable to watch. He played his character in a very subtle way - halfway between comic and serious. He portrays a desperate man, constantly resorting to drugs so he can pass through the day. Depp and the filmmakers see him as a version of Sherlock Holmes, constantly finding clues that other police officers have overlooked (cliched, yes, but somehow Depp provides a little bit of originality). Abberline even suggests that the killer must be a learned man! How could this be?! While dismissed by all the other characters in the film (for a learned man would never commit acts of such debauchery), we as an audience know better not to trust a detective like this - their preposterous ideas are usually right. Another actor to praise in this is the wonderful Ian Holm. He plays his character with a wry little smile, seemingly enjoying every line he says. His interactions with Depp are great to watch.

While the film provides little to ponder on once the credits have rolled, you can leave satisfied that you have seen a stylish and enjoyable film. The Hughes brothers seem to be a talented pair of directors.

For those that care I gave this film 7/10

Interesting spin on the tale, if not particularly memorable

[MovieAddict2016 · 6/10 · 26 April 2005]

"From Hell" is an interesting spin on the familiar Jack the Ripper tale, using the iconic cultural image of the cloaked man with the top hat as the source for a spin-off not of history, but of a graphic novel.

The lead performance by Johnny Depp as Inspector Abberline (who really existed in 1888 at the time of the murders and really was an authority on the case) is wonderful. Depp nails the cockney accent perfectly. Unfortunately, Heather Graham -- as the prostitute Mary Kelley -- is not as fortunate. Although her accent seems to improve throughout the film at various intervals, for most of "From Hell's" duration her British voice is quite stiff and the American twang is audible. The Hughes Brothers did not choose Graham for her acting abilities.

That said, the set design on this production is magnificent. 1880s London is brought to life and Whitechapel has never looked more realistic. The film is an odd hybrid of genres because it maintains the look and feel of a slasher film whilst presenting historical elements and painstaking recreations of actual murders. Robbie Coltrane, as one of the police officers involved in the case, has a lot of fun with his character and is fun to watch, and similarly as convincing as the scenery.

This is a very gritty and gory film -- more so than I ever expected. It's quite a strange beast with hallucinogenic visuals, horror elements and history thrown in for good measure, on top of some slightly modernized techniques. All in all this film kept me entertained because it was unique, and very different, and not particularly because it was "great." I didn't expect a whole lot, but I felt that the movie was directed as ably as it could (or should) have been and the performance by Johnny Depp was deserving of a better film. The ending got a bit carried away, but it still presents a pretty cool twist on the whole Jack the Ripper scenario without totally insulting the intelligence or even upsetting one's sense of history. (Like Disney's "Pocahontas.") The respect the filmmakers have for their material shines through and elevates this above what it could have been. Definitely worth seeing, if only for its originality.

Gloomy, down beat Victorian thriller that doesn't quite make the kill

[Aidan McGuinness · 21 February 2002]

"From Hell" is another Jack-the-Ripper yarn. This time around Johnny Depp plays Inspector Frederick George Abberline, who is investigating the work of a killer carving up the bodies of prostitutes in Whitechapel, London.

"From Hell" is a borderline horror/thriller. There is a fantastical element to the story as Depp receives visions of the killings, when "chasing the dragon" (or, in simpler terms, when doped up to his eye-balls). These visions are used to make mad-intuitive leaps on Abberline's parts to help push along the story-line, as the bodies begin to pile up. Unfortunately the killer is quite obvious as the script provides "red herrings" which are set up in a manner that you know they're going to be false, so the viewer is "surprised" (or not) when the real killer is revealed. That's a shame as it removes some of the mystery from the movie when you realise you got it right. There's also a rather interesting take on the murderer's reasoning, which is not entirely unwelcome, but does feel somewhat as if they need to pad out the story and distinguish it from other Ripper yarns.

Depp is, as usual, good. His accent appears a bit muddled however - where is he supposed to be from? But, as Hollywood standards go, it's better than average. Robbie Coltrane provides the humour (such as there is) by being Abberline's quipping side-kick, making dry observations of the situations he finds himself in. Coltrane has shown his acting skills in the TV series "Cracker" and he doesn't strain himself here, nor does he outshine himself. The rest of the cast are grand but Heather Graham, as the whore whom Depp falls for, is unconvincing as she looks far too pretty, and well mannered, to be a "lady of the night".

The direction is alright. The Hughes' brothers manage to convey a generally, downbeat and sombre tone to the proceedings. The vision sequences however come across as slightly comic-booky, a reminder of movies of the 60s/70s where they went overboard on filters and camera distortions in order to depict insanity. Far more effective is the bleak visions used in the TV show "Millennium" - here it tends to detract from the seriousness of the moment. Some of the scenes are fairly gory - it features a quite gruesome throat slashing - while other times the violence is seen purely in the reactions of others, without having to expose the viewer to it. Both of these work well. All in all the Hughes' acquit themselves because they fail to actually show a bright, clear image until the very very end of the movie, where the image is accompanied by one of the darkest in the movie. Thus they effectively capture the mood of the city and the times.

"From Hell" suffers from having a lack of tension and a script where characters tend to take on almost caricature tones (some of the prostitutes and the Nickel's gang in particular come across as ham-fisted). Nevertheless there's a mood to the movie, and Depp's performance is convincing enough to keep you watching until the decidedly downbeat end. Recommended for fans of the Victorian thriller/horror genre and those seeking a half-decent movie. 6.4/10

Jack the Ripper is the ostensible subject of Albert and Allen Hughes' From Hell, but this legendary figure is more a point of departure, an obviously sensational hook, than the film's focus.

[kevin_blaze · 6/10 · 7 January 2002]

30 Second Bottom Line: The infamous Jack the Ripper serial killer mystery unfolds in Victorian England as a stylistic who dun it.

From Hell is an exciting murder mystery with a number of hints about who dun it to keep things interesting every step of the way. Depp gives his expected, outstanding and other worldly performance. Ian Holm, Katrin Cartlidge, Robbie Coltrane and Ian Richardson and some of the unnamed prostitutes give the film an edge that takes us back a century in time. Heather Graham is OK and I'm pleased to see her doing something beyond Say it Isn't So and more along the lines of Sidewalks of New York. She is, however, a little too pretty, sophisticated, charming and clean for a street ho. Katrin Cartlidge would have been a better Mary. It's a little bit of a stretch to envision the Inspector and the whore Mary falling in love, but stranger things have happened.

It's always gratifying to see actors, writers and directors grow; and certainly the Hughes Brothers are doing that. They have not made a lot of films but each one is very good. The two could be a Stanley Kubrick in the making, as he only made 13 films during a long, respected and controversial career. Since 1993, they've made Menace II Society, Dead Presidents and American Pimp. From Hell is more sophisticated while still retaining a dark tone that is not depressing. Peter Deming as cinematographer has outdone himself with From Hell and Mulholland Drive. It's clearly Oscar caliber work.

Although From Hell is based on a comprehensive novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, with the focus on a real killer in 1888, the film is not trying to be a JFK and convince us how it really happened. That said, when you realize who the killer is you are faced with an interesting hypothesis.

Jack the Ripper may have been crazy, but he was acting out of logic (his own to be sure) and for a reason other than wanting to kill a few prostitutes. The fog in London finally is lifted on the murder mystery and on the Hughes Brothers being great directors.

Message on the movie: We can't always have what we want from life. Evil exists. Victorian England was a very unpleasant place and era.

So the conclusion is that this movie is a fair movie althouht actually it hadn't got a very clear ending, it is fantastic thriller to watch and remember don't miss this one.

Read the comic

[DanM519 · 6/10 · 21 June 2003]

Not saying that this movie was bad, I just think that the comic by Alan Moore was a lot better. What Alan Moore managed to do with the story, was really blow you away with all the depth of the story. The movie was a decent adaptation, but I think that From Hell would have worked a lot better as a mini-series, especially since the comic had such a long run (it was told in 16 parts). The movie only allowed you to scratch the surface of the story.

Visually Stunning

[LG72387 · 6/10 · 27 May 2002]

From Hell is a gruesome portrait of murder in London during the reign of Queen Victoria. It tells the story of Jack the Ripper, a psychotic individual who murdered 5 prostitutes. Johnny Depp is brilliant as the inspector who tries to hunt him down and delivers one of the best performances of his career. The story is well written by the Hughes Brothers and is a truly enjoyable film for anyone who loves the horror genre. However, it is the predictability of this film and the performance of Heather Graham which provides From Hell with a downfall. The spoken dialogue between Depp and a good doctor lets you easily figure out who the murderer is. It does not supply the audience with a surprise or twist. Heather Graham's performance is purely simple and does not illustrate her capable talent. She does not deliver a well-rounded performance as Mary Kelly (also a prostitute) because she does not show essential emotion (i.e. fear) in order to fulfill her role. However, the film is an exceptional horror picture and should not be overlooked by any fan of movies.

Simply a fantastic movie

[KenLiversausage · 9/10 · 1 October 2003]

The critics, nit-pickers and historical pedants who've trashed this superb piece of truly cinematic movie-making have totally missed the point.

So what if Johnny Depp's English accent isn't exactly "right" for his character? (English accents have always been problematic for all but the most skilled of American actors: Depp pulls it off entirely passably, way way better than - say - Keanu Reeves, risible in Coppola's Dracula. Think of Kevin Costner, who didn't even bother trying in Robin Hood Prince of Thieves.) I'm a Londoner by birth, and for me the accent in no way detracted from Depp's excellent performance.

As for history, again, who cares if the filmmakers have employed a degree of dramatic licence? This is a movie, not a documentary. Nobody knows for sure who Jack the Ripper was, and in order to make the film interesting and enjoyable the writers have speculated a little. Fine by me.

OK, so Heather Graham was impossibly glamorous, but movies with big budgets need a little bit of star appeal. The notion of the "tart with a heart" is a cliché, sure, but nevertheless her character works in the context of the film. (Contrast the depiction of prostitution generally in this film with the utter garbage that is Pretty Woman.)

What's so great about this film? The quirky, literate script; the performances (all, with the possible exception of Graham, excellent); the wonderful photography and production design; the depiction of the murders themselves - elliptical, shocking, mesmerising; and above all the aura of brooding menace, gloom, cruelty, darkness, melancholy and downright despair running through it as deeply as the veins through a block of marble. This is marvellously thoughtful, evocative film-making, very bold and brave. No happy Hollywood ending, no phoney saccharine or cheap laughs to satisfy the popcorn brigade. This is a proper grown-ups movie that probes some of the darkest regions of the human psyche, places mainstream filmmakers like Lucas, Spielberg, James Cameron and their ilk don't dare to go, or couldn't go even if they wanted to. To me it appeals almost on a subconscious level, forcing us to confront our deepest fears and taboos - death, pain, suffering, human wickedness. I can't think of a recent major release that is so relentlessly downbeat.

Don't let the detractors put you off. It's hardly surprising a generation weened on MTV - folk with the the attention span of a gnat and the emotional depth of a paper cup - didn't like it. They've got their Screams and their Scary Movies, and they're welcome to them. This is super stuff, and the Hughes brothers and their collaborators should be heartily congratulated for it.

A classic, not so much for the plot, which is a little contrived, but for its sure command of cinema as a visual storytelling medium.

Nice visuals, mediocre plot.

[astroview · 6/10 · 21 October 2001]

This is a nicely shot film. Many scenes featured very little depth of field. The directors played with focus almost constantly, and had some nice imagery.

The acting was good. I wasn't blown away, but it wasn't great either. Heather Graham's American accent slipped through only once noticeably.

The movie was mainly plot driven. Character development was kept to a minimum. The plot was only decent, so that barely kept interest in the movie. It's a nice film to see in a theater for the camera work and visuals, but I wouldn't rent it. It is dark, which is nice to see in a movie shot today.

Poor Mary Kelly

[sepial · 3/10 · 15 June 2011]

This movie, loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name, does not offer an accurate account of the events in Whitechapel, autumn 1888, and it doesn't pretend that it does, so folks preoccupied with the Ripper-case don't have to rush and fill the goof-section with corrections regarding the actual ongoings. It also doesn't rely much on the graphic novel, with the exception of the choice for the perpetrator and all this would imply, although different from the novel keeps it a who-dunnit till the end. The movie is a Hollywood action-horror-romance populated with historical figures who underwent even more liberty, ranging from shallow drafting over purpose-posing to audacious character-alteration. In this sense, recreating parts of Whitechapel in Prague, and this still way too clean, was with all the inaccuracy probably not necessary. But OK, it's a show, and the real background story remains captivating enough, as well as Depp's acquired accent and Coltrane's presence.

Too many things strangle the effort, however, starting with the main weakness of Heather Graham being cast and outfitted as Mary Kelly. While the other victims, struggling prostitutes in the most ragged quarters of London, were all made up to more or less look that way, torn clothes, unmade hair, bad teeth and no make-up, not to mention the required acting, Graham's Mary Kelly sticks out the way Cinderella would if arriving in Whitechapel after the ball: hair perfect, careful make-up, tidy, clean, unharmed dresses, and Miss Graham is ready for the cast- party. Needless to say, we never see her getting drunk or even just attempting to go after her trade like the others. But then she's the love-interest, of course. Which is another very ill-advised idea, and we see virtually all cliché Hollywood-rules unfolding, a killer when it comes to this particular crime-case.

The movie superficially shines with a cast of very able actors, Depp, Richardson, Holm, Coltrane, the late wonderful Katrin Cartlidge, to name a few, and yet, although the fantasy- and horror-genre ever so often tickles surprising performances out of well known stars, nothing breathtaking happens here, with the exception of Holm's play (although watch, he's doing the chin-thing again), too deep the tracks of expectation in character-behaviour are, and too dominant.

Fusing an inspector and a self acclaimed medium, who both had been involved, to a clairvoyant inspector might have, with some tolerance, given this re-telling of the story some spice, but the idea went out in a puff in the end.

The choice to stick to the graphic novel's conspiracy-take and involvement of the Freemasonry, which Moore himself, with good reason, didn't insist on being the most promising one, decides a course, of course, one that had already been taken once with 'Murder By Decree', and by taking it a lot of rather interesting theories, indicators and characters have to go out the window, but here we go.

'From Hell' is pure entertainment, shallow, spotless, with a camera-work good for the eye, lines that fit together and no claim for authenticity. It kept me watching, mainly for the never ceasing fascination with the Whitechapel-murders, leaning back for the ride. It's not a very good movie, though. I'd give it a well-meaning 4, but the Graham-Kelly, so present throughout and in favour over a chance for an interesting Mary Kelly, spoils it. Hence a 3.

And: will there ever be a truly engaging, good movie about the subject?

A psychotropic thriller

[kmberger · 9/10 · 9 January 2002]

There are many things in media that have nearly insurmountable preconceptions that lead to generic truisms. One of these is 'comic books are pure fluff,' and another is 'no good movie is ever based on a comic book'.

From Hell is a project that takes both of those truisms and tosses them completely out the window. Based on an ambitious graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Eddie Campbell, From Hell (named for the signature on the Jack the Ripper letters written to the police), is one man's carefully researched theory into the eternal mystery surrounding the Whitechapel murders of 1888.

This is not a factual display of guilt or innocence, as many of the answers behind these crimes will never be known, but as theory mixed with fact, it creates with chilling detail the mood of lower-class London in the late nineteenth century, where life was cheap, bloody and oftentimes short.

The Hughes brothers, noted for their stylish direction, do a very good job of creating the mood here, involving all the grunginess and hopelessness of the streets, and combining the more mystical elements of Moore's story into the crime tale. Johnny Depp is Inspector Abberline - an opium-smoking criminal investigator that often follows up on hunches he receives during moments of hallucinatory revelation.

The style of the film - dripping with violent murder of prostitutes in alleyways - leaves more to the imagination than it reveals, although the gore level is by no means light. The vicious throat-slashes and bloody crime scenes are definitely grotesque, but most of the time we are shown the crime after the fact, letting the viewer decide how horrible the murder itself was.

All the performances are strong, fitting together into an ensemble piece, with Depp being as much a chameleon as ever as Abberline, and Robbie Coltrane equally strong as his colleague Godfrey. Ian Holm, Heather Graham, and Ian Richardson also provide good supporting roles.

For an historical perspective of the Jack the Ripper crimes, best to watch an A&E documentary. But for a theoretical description of the crimes, and an artful depiction of a carefully constructed tale, definitely check out the very chilling, very calculated, and very good From Hell.

One of the darkest films that I have ever seen

[moviesleuth2 · 7/10 · 5 July 2010]

"From Hell" takes place in our worst nightmares, a place so dark and scary that even walking around is enough to drive someone mad. This is a very, VERY dark film. It's so dark that it makes "Seven" look like "The Wizard of Oz." Then again, you wouldn't expect a movie based on Jack the Ripper to be light and cheery, now would you?

London, 1888. A young prostitute was murdered in the Whitechapel district. The police enlist the help of Fredrick Abberline (Johnny Depp) because of the savagery of the murder and because his opium hallucinations help him solve crimes. But more victims fall, Abberline begins to realize that these murders are connected.

The film has a brilliantly dark atmosphere. You know that odd creepy feeling you get when you read about haunted mental asylums, and images of demented doctors performing horrific experiments come to mind? That's what "From Hell" feels like. It's an unsettling feeling, and the Hughes Brothers are skillful in their employment of this unnerving feeling.

The acting is solid, although the film's best hand is the atmosphere. Johnny Depp, who according to his IMDb bio is fascinated by Jack the Ripper, plays things straight (as far as Depp can go in that direction). Heather Graham is also solid as Mary Kelly, the prostitute that Abberline develops feelings for. She speaks with a credible Cockney accent, and tones down the perkiness that she's known for to a very low level. Ian Holm and Robbie Coltrane provide good support as well.

The problem with the film is the story. Whether it was in the scripting stage or in production, the story is confusing at times, particularly at the end. This is one of those movies where you have to pay attention, or else you will get lost (which is quite possible, considering how strong the atmosphere is).

Let me make myself clear: this is a very dark and disturbing film. Most of the violence and gore are left to the imagination (which will be on overkill due to grisly descriptions of the murders), but there is no doubt that this movie deserves as hard of an R rating as can be found. Definitely not for the faint of heart or the blood-phobic.

You Can Tell This Is An American Film

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 28 August 2003]

Why is it Americans have a laughably ethnocentric view of Britain ? They seem to be under the impression that each and every person of the United Kingdom is a cockney who says " Cor blimey Guv " a lot and works as a chimney sweep . In fact the only people we see in American movies who aren`t cockneys are the royal family ! Even BAND OF BROTHERS suffers from this flaw and that was a BBC co-production ! I must admit that it was nice to see the producers FROM HELL did their homework on 19th century London - By watching MARY POPPINS over and over again

Not having a time machine I`ve never been to 1888 London but can`t help thinking the ethnic make of the city is all wrong with everyone talking with a cockney accent , wouldn`t London be full of Scots and Irish swapping their Scottish and Irish slums for one in London ? Just curious because everyone with the exception of Robbie Coltrane`s character is either a cockney or a former public schoolboy , and of course by casting a bunch of native Brits you can`t help notice how bad the accents coming from Johnny Depp and Heather Graham are . Depp especially is abysmal

As the film continues you still notice the annoying accents but other irritants force their way into the movie . Despite having characters that existed in real life they`re written beyond all recognition , for instance Inspector Abberline had visions of the killings like some sort of psychic ? I don`t think so , oh and that bit with the diversion at Special Branch didn`t happen either and there`s no evidence he had a relationship with Mary Kelly or that any of the victims knew each other . Talking of Mary Kelly I was going to point out that , physically at least , that the real life Mary Kelly does not in any way resemble the one seen here but being an American film you`ve got to excuse some artistic license where glamour is involved

Actually this glamour jars with the opening of the film which shows the London of 1888 being a human hell hole with drunkeness and drug addiction being the norm . Strangely this actually correct , in those days drugs weren`t outlawed and a great many people took all types of drugs that would now be called " Class A drugs "( Including Queen Victoria ) though there`s no evidence Inspector Abberline was a user , so once again it`s disappointing to see so much historical inaccuracy involved especially The Rippers motivations . I can`t disprove the theories put forward but do empires collapse like this ? In my opinion - No . Oh and talking of The Ripper it`s very very obvious who he is when he first opens his mouth about twenty minutes into the movie because you`ll be able to recognise the actor`s voice straight away

So FROM HELL could have been a very good movie , but alas it`s not

More of a curiosity than a conquest

[=G= · 7/10 · 15 May 2002]

"From Hell", yet another "Jack the Ripper" flick, is somewhat over wrought with lavish cinematography imbuing what we'd like to believe is a bleak and dank Whitechapel District of London with richness; a street whore protagonist (Graham) somehow insulting in her sweetness; and a Scotland Yard sleuth (Depp) uncharacteristically dashing considering his beginning and his end. In spite of these and many other foibles, the Hughes bros and company have breathed life into the old and moldy "Ripper" lore with a film which propagates still another hypothesis, a somewhat interesting and entertaining story though more of a curiosity and a conquest. Worth a look especially for those who are unfamiliar with good ol' "Jack's" tall tale.

I say old chap, the British accent IS a bit of a sticky wicket

[Eric-1226 · 25 April 2002]

I was amazed (and a bit perplexed) to hear so many of the previous commenters on IMDb – namely, those from the British Isles – make such pointed comments on the (apparently) scarcely believable accents of American actors Johnny Depp and Heather Graham. As for me, being a Yank and all, I neither noticed nor cared too much whether either Depp or Graham turned out a spotless British, Cockney, Irish or what-have-you accent… because ultimately I don't know enough about those accents to be able to make an informed opinion. So in that respect I was rather neutral on the whole accent business throughout the film.

Yes, I know what an authentic B-C-I accent sounds like, and I too noticed that these weren't flawless, but I never gave it much thought, as both of them seemed at least realistic and convincing enough to allow me to enjoy the overall atmospheric "look and feel" of the movie, which was far more important.

That being said, I can see where you are coming from. It would be the equivalent of watching a movie, say, featuring Medieval warriors doing battle, where everything in the battle scenes – the weapons, battle flags, helmets, spears, horses, etc.- are just spot-on accurately depicted, but (horror!) here and there you notice that a few of the foot soldiers are seen to be wearing modern-day wrist watches and sunglasses, or sporting the latest pair of Nike running shoes on their feet. Distracting, to say the least – and potentially ruinous to the whole "magic" of the movie experience.

I get the same reaction, I guess, when I see American actors who were born north of the Mason-Dixon line attempting to do a realistic- sounding Southern accent. My own mother was born and raised in the Deep South; I've personally traveled throughout much of the South, and as such I can spot a real Southern accent from a fake one from at least a mile away. (Good example of a non-Suthnah' doing an incredible Southern accent: Fred Gwynne (born/raised in NY-NY) as Judge Chamberlain Haller in 1992's "My Cousin Vinny").

But these comments about accents do raise some interesting critical questions. Namely, should Gollywood try to make more of an effort in casting the most appropriate (and realistic) actor or actress in every cast opening? Hmm, let's see, Inspector Abberline was from Dorset... perhaps the producers of this film could have or should have found an actor born and bred in Dorset to fill the role of Inspector Abberline? (Sorry, I don't right off hand know any actors originally from Dorset, so you'll have to provide me a name, if you know of one!). But on the other hand (and we all know this stubborn little fact of filmdom)... yes, that's right, they have to sell those tickets, they have to fill those seats in the theaters, folks. And Johnny Depp – say what you will about him – he *does* at least have that "fill the seats" sort of box-office magnetism.

I have always admired Johnny Depp, and I like much of his body of work. And I hurry to say that I was not disappointed with his work in this film. I regret that, for many of you, he didn't make the grade as a convincing enough Inspector Abberline, so much so that it ruined an otherwise absorbing and atmospheric film. I can only point out that, given the realities and mysteries of casting, it could have been worse. I mean, thank God it wasn't Bill Murray playing the Inspector! (Danny DeVito, anyone?)

With the possible exception of calling the good folks at Central Casting, I don't know what the answer is, I don't know what we can do about it... (Sorry, I don't know their number, but I know it ISN'T "1-800-GET-REAL".) But let me just close by saying that movies DO require a certain contribution of suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer. Until the folks at Central Casting can come up with perfect matches for every cast part, or until actors and actresses can effortlessly adopt themselves to the subtleties of a regional or foreign dialect, well, we will just have to deal with it, won't we?

Not bad at all

[Vampenguin · 7/10 · 26 March 2006]

This was a pretty good show. Depp is one of my favourite actors, and while this wasn't one of his best roles, he still did a great job as Abberline. I also quire liked Robbie Coltrane as his partner with an affection for poetry, Peter Godrey. The rest of the supporting cast was good as well, especially Ian Holm. I loved the atmosphere; though I've heard people complain about it's inaccuracies, I love this romantic kind of portrayal of London: the cobblestone streets, the faint street lights through the billowing fog...makes a great setting for a horror flick. One small problem I had was that the plot seemed to move too fast. There wasn't really enough time for anything to develop, especially near the end. Overall it was a pretty good movie though, I enjoyed it.

7/10

You get what you expect.

[drewdummer · 6/10 · 23 October 2001]

Don't expect to much of suspense or surprise in this movie. The Huges brothers did a wonderful job with the details of what is known of Jack the Ripper's murders and the atmosphere is well done. However, if you know a little of Jack the Ripper's history then you are not going to be surprised by to much in the film. Also be prepared for what they had to do to make it a big hollywood film which is to give it a somewhat happy ending and over dramatize some of the characters involved. Probably worth seeing a matinee if you like any of the actors or the Ripper story, but otherwise wait for the video.

Haunting and Moody

[Alan-40 · 7/10 · 8 July 2005]

Exploring the almost mythic story of Jack the Ripper, this movie gets your right down in the slums with the victims of the story. Depp's character is a bit hard to relate to because he spends a lot of time in a drug-induced haze, even though he is lucid enough while on the job. He'd be nowhere without the friendship of his sidekick played by Coltrane Perhaps the biggest problem with this movie is it is hard to see Inspector Abberline's (Depp) motivation to solve the murders, at least until he develops some interest in one of the potential victims, Mary Kelly (Heather Graham). Even then he seems so lightweight that he could just be blown away. An atypical hero.

A very good choice for a weekend rental.

"FROM HELL is a dark, compelling horror film... that will stay in your mind for days after watching.

[SteveMadcow · 9/10 · 2 December 2001]

I had always been fascinated by the story of Jack the Ripper, but surprisingly this was my first film based on the story. From Hell is an outstanding mystery and a dark, moody film. This is the type of film that sticks in your mind days after seeing it. You'll have the image of old Whitechaple in your head. You'll have the terrific murder scenes stuck in your head, but most of all you'll have the image of Jack the Ripper in your head. From Hell will disturb you. It might scare you, and it might even bore you (action fans will not enjoy this film). From Hell is certainly not for everyone, but it certainly was for me.

Johnny Depp is fantastic. He is one of my favorite actors, and certainly delivers the goods in From Hell. His performance is perfect, and one of his bests yet. Heather Graham also does a fine job in From Hell. I was surprised with her performance. I'll admit, when I heard she was going to be in the film, I was worried. I mean who doesn't get worried when they find out the same actress who was in Austin Powers 2 is going to be in a Jack the Ripper film. But she did surprise me, although I still think she could have done better.

The Hughes brothers direct this film with such style. The use of colors in the film is beautiful, as is the use of lighting. The camera angles are crazy, and the film turns out a beauty. Trevor Jones' score is great (As a matter of fact, I'm listening to it now), and fits the film perfectly. The music is eerie, creepy, and scary. It's flawless.

The murder mystery is also great. It keeps you guessing the whole way through (I was not successful in guessing who Jack was), and when the killer is revealed, it all makes sense. And let me tell you, From Hell is violent! Although not as gory as I expected it to be, it'll still make you cringe (that throat slash!). A lot of the violence takes place off screen, which lets your imagination run wild, and mine did just that(My head was filled with tons of gory images).

A lot of people call From Hell boring. I can see how they think that, but I disagree completely with that. Sure the film is slow moving, but how fast can a murder mystery movie be? I didn't get bored with the film at all... I was completely absorbed in the film. Another problem people found with this film was the love story, which I have to agree with. Had the love story been more developed, the ending would have been much more depressing, as we would have felt for the characters more (This could be what kept the film from an A+ rating).

As I said before From Hell is great. It is my 3rd favorite film of the year, and my second favorite horror film (this year). It's a dark, compelling film, that is NOT FUN! There is no comic relief, it's all horror. Had it been a little more scary, and had the love story been more developed this film would be an A+. I highly recommend fans stay away, because you'll hate it.this film to fans of Jack the Ripper, and horror fans with patience. Action

From Hell: 9.5/10, A

One day man will look back and say that I gave birth to the Absinthe Revival ....

[CelluloidRehab · 7/10 · 7 March 2006]

London, 1888.

Jack the Ripper.

In the streets of White Chapel, there's the working classes, filth, grime, dirt, drunks, and prostitutes. The movie focuses in on a group of prostitutes. Heather Graham is Mary Kelly, a member of the group and the Ripper's last victim. Another one of them, Anne, has happily gotten out of the life by marrying a wealthy artist and having a child together. Her perfect life is shattered when strange men burst in (during the middle of a very steamy sex scene) and separate her from her husband and child. They disappear. Anne is diagnosed with dementia and is treated (a.k.a - 3 holes are hammered into her skull).

From then all, the remaining girls are killed off one by one (by the Ripper of course). Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp) investigates the murders as they occur. His opening scene is one in which he is having one of his "visions" while "chasing the dragon" (smoking opium) in an opium den. He "sees" the murders before or as they're occurring. Of course we all know of the Ripper, however, the movie is from the perspective that everything that happened, is happening as we watch. We are a part of Victorian London.

Jack the Ripper is one of those mysteries. Numerous documentaries and movies have been made on the subject and various theories and conspiracies have been created, because of the lack of a information and a resolution. This movie resides happily within those folds. Just like the real investigation, the movie naturally has holes in it. It fills those hole with atmosphere and style. The murders are very graphics and gets progressively more graphic as the movie wears on. The mood is dark. London is in a perpetual coal fog and everything is black, brown, gray or covered with soot. Color is a sparse commodity, but when it shows is strangely captivating (mainly in the volume of fake blood used).

I will not get into the various elements that make for an intriguing mystery as this might ruin the plot and the fun. There is romantic connection between Mary Kelly and Abberline, but it is subtle and is cut short by the plot. There is definitely a class struggle, but that is evident from Dickens and the period.

This movie has always stood out in my mind because of its style and atmosphere. I didn't find it scary but at the same time I never feel quite comfortable. It is like your leg starting to fall asleep, yet you are unable to do anything about it. Abberline's ritualistic smoking of opium and his bathtub Absinthe preparation are classic. I can safely say Johnny Depp taught me about and how to drink Absinthe. All in all, this is an intriguing movie worthy of at least a rental.

JACK-THE-RIP-OFF

[shamsee · 1/10 · 3 June 2002]

After watching this movie, I think the tag-line should have been, "Got Grapes?" (Got Milk?) or "Ah, The Power of Grapes" (Ah, the Power of Cheese).

The hero is an opium addict who has ability to envision tomorrows murder, today. He is supposed to be very smart. At one point he is drawing locations of different spots where bodies were recovered, and based on that he figures out that this has some significance in terms of some cult and predicts the location of next murder. At that point he had a good idea that the reason those women were being murdered was that they were witness to a wedding of some loser prince and somebody wanted them to be eliminated. My question is, why didn't he post all the idiot cops right outside that ONE room where all of those women lived? Wouldn't it be easy to just ask a pair of cops to FOLLOW the remaining two or three women in that ONE room? He knew who was getting killed, and why, yet there were cops everywhere but outside that one spot. This is level of idiocy not seen before in any crime movie.

Another question: Shouldn't the hero have told the remaining women, NOT TO TALK TO STRANGERS WHO GIVE YOU GRAPES? How about questioning couple of fruit vendors? He also knew the killer was rich and educated, and there were more than one suspect at hand. Yet Jack-The-Rip-OFF gallops through those narrow streets in his carriage, and no one seemed to take a note.

The dialogue, the acting, the sets, the cast, the characters, were so horrible, that I found myself rooting for Jack! His acting was best in whole movie, but could not save it from being one of the worst movies ever made.

Instead of buying a ticket for this movie, I would have been better off if I had bought grapes.

Truly effective Gothic horror film

[zetes · 10/10 · 20 March 2002]

I wasn't expecting much from this movie. The critics passed it over rather quickly, saying a few kind words but without a strong recommendation. The couple of people I knew who saw this said that it was "good," but never cared to say much more than that and have never brought it up again. As I sat down to watch it, I thought it looked nice but moved too fast, was a little dumb. But by the end, I was astounded. I think it's one of the best films of 2001. Sure, it's a triumph of style over substance, but I think we need a couple of good films like this every year. I love style.

I would compare From Hell most closely to Alex Proyas' 1997 triumph Dark City, which, like From Hell, made almost nothing at the box office. I hope, like Dark City, that From Hell will win a larger audience on video. It's not as intelligent as Dark City, which was brilliant in nearly every way, but From Hell equals it in visual virtuosity. Its story, while sometimes lapsing into silliness, is enormously gripping. It's also one of the few horror films to succeed at inducing a sense of dread in the audience. A Scotland Yard detective (played well by Johnny Depp) is on the case of Jack the Ripper, who is himself on the trail of a group of five prostitutes. On the way, Depp discovers that the ritualistic murders are part of a larger conspiracy. The film is full of great twists, the biggest one being simply hilarious in its level of audacity. The end is quite unpredictable (although the climax is a little too predictable).

There are several minor flaws in the film. It does go a bit too fast, but its breathless pace ends up paying off well in the end. Many people will be turned off at the level of gore in the film. Seriously, avoid it at all costs if you have a weak stomach. But if you could take it in Silence of the Lambs, Se7en, or Sleepy Hollow, you'll be fine. I actually felt that those three particular films flaunted their gore and were tremendously ineffective in their horror. Yes, even (and perhaps especially) Silence of the Lambs. I don't know why, but I didn't feel that way about From Hell. 10/10.

Hammer Horror gets a big budget

[adspink · 6/10 · 13 February 2002]

I was a little disappointed with this film, in that it's not nearly as good as Sleepy Hollow. I thought that Johnny Depp and Robbie Coltrane were very good, but the rest of the cast were fairly anonymous. Overall - the effect I got was of a Hammer Horror film with a bit more budget, this isn't entirely a bad thing, but it is a bit of a missed opportunity.

This shouldn't have been made

[b018675 · 1/10 · 23 March 2002]

What will Hollywood scenario writers think up next? As an historian I am appalled about this story. What will they put foreward as actual fact. Now you could argue, they never said... but anyhow they used the victim's names and murder locations. This can't be serious. What a missed chance. The actual Ripper story drips with drama, mystery, enigma, colourful individuals, should I go on? No, but some third rate, coca-cola drinking scenario writer thought the American public would be better off with some fifteenth rate love story soap. It could even be oscar material. Let me tell him or they, thanks to this 'penny-novel' approach, every well made, well acted and sometimes brilliant visual approach was destroyed thoroughly for me. Victorian England was something else. One piece of advice: check your sources well, if you used sources other than your bank account. A good advice: don't be confronted with European historians or you will end up like... To conclude: Jack the Ripper doesn't translate to Disneyworld. Real people died in 1888 and the British Royal family had nothing to do with it.