From Hell is quite the work of art. When the ideas of infusing art
into cinema were produced, From Hell is obviously what was
thought of. But the question is whether From Hell's grandiose
beauty translates into the genius of Salvador Dali or the overblown
fluff of Jackson Pollock.
On the one hand, the photography is simply stunning. The realism
is amazing. The depiction of the London of Jack the Ripper,
Charles Dickens and Sherlock Holmes is stunningly realistic. The
society created by the film makers is amazing to watch in of itself.
Also, Johnny Depp shows that he is one of the best actors of our
time. Granted, his role as the police inspector trying to find the
Ripper is not dissimilar from his role in Sleepy Hollow, but why
should that matter? From Hell is an excellent movie to watch
immediately after taking in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and
Blow to realize what an incredible actor he is.
The movie contains vast amounts of violence, yet it is portrayed
tastefully and seems necessary to the movie, even if it's not all that
important to show the blood and guts. It almost strips From Hell of
its horror label because the brothers Hughes found ways to show
gutted prostitutes and still raise the movie above the slasher-gore
genre.
The plot works like a modern-day version of an Agatha Christie
book. We're given the parts fairly soon, and we watch the inspector
try to figure it out. This is much different from the other intelligent
crime-horror flicks of late: Se7en, Kiss the Girls and In Dreams
featured loonies we never met until late in the movie. The Watcher
told us who it was the whole time. But From Hell shows us the
killer, as well as several clues throughout the movie, but the
ending is still a surprise when Depp reveals it. How refreshing!
The plot also runs on several levels, adding in seemingly
disjointed pieces (Anne and the Masons, for example) yet putting it
all together at the end.
The ending of the movie is probably the most non-climactic ending
to a horror movie the last ten years. Strange that this movie builds
toward a climax that never happens, yet the ending still leaves
viewers satisfied.
But not all is well with From Hell:
Heather Graham isn't dirty enough. If she's a prostitute, then she
should be a dirty whore. But she's not. She's the clean-faced,
red-haired, smiling one that stays out of the fray while her friends
are slaughtered in unspeakable ways. After all the effort to make
the surroundings realistic, would a little charcoal on the cheeks
have been too much to ask?
Besides which, Heather Graham couldn't even act in Austin
Powers, what ever made the film makers believe she could act in
a horror-thriller based on semi-historical events and a
controversial novel? Sorry. Heather Graham joins Mira Sorvino in
failing the "first major serious role" test.
Someone in the editing room got a little too happy at the beginning
of the movie. At some point in the middle of a string of murders,
did someone not think to stop and say, "Hey but do you think
anyone would mind if we showed more than two uninterrupted
seconds of a single viewpoint?" In some cases, the splicing and
dicing of the film works, but it gets old pretty fast, and horror fans
may be wishing they could play some scenes in slow motion.
The ending is also a potential weak point. The nega-climactic
ending leaves the possibility for the audience to walk out of the
theatre with no lasting impression of the film, except a lot of dark.
This is dangerous. Bold and gutsy, and I subtract no points for it
since I found it appealing, but it is dangerous, none the less.
Overall, From Hell is the third excellent horror movie released this
year (Hannibal, The Others, sorry haven't seen Joy Ride or
Jeepers Creepers yet). It is dark and disturbing. The horror doesn't
work on a shock/scare factor, but rather on a psychological/fundamental level. Audiences won't scream in terror,
but many will find the movie horrifying. And in that sense, the
Hughes Brothers have created a rousing success.
9/10
into cinema were produced, From Hell is obviously what was
thought of. But the question is whether From Hell's grandiose
beauty translates into the genius of Salvador Dali or the overblown
fluff of Jackson Pollock.
On the one hand, the photography is simply stunning. The realism
is amazing. The depiction of the London of Jack the Ripper,
Charles Dickens and Sherlock Holmes is stunningly realistic. The
society created by the film makers is amazing to watch in of itself.
Also, Johnny Depp shows that he is one of the best actors of our
time. Granted, his role as the police inspector trying to find the
Ripper is not dissimilar from his role in Sleepy Hollow, but why
should that matter? From Hell is an excellent movie to watch
immediately after taking in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and
Blow to realize what an incredible actor he is.
The movie contains vast amounts of violence, yet it is portrayed
tastefully and seems necessary to the movie, even if it's not all that
important to show the blood and guts. It almost strips From Hell of
its horror label because the brothers Hughes found ways to show
gutted prostitutes and still raise the movie above the slasher-gore
genre.
The plot works like a modern-day version of an Agatha Christie
book. We're given the parts fairly soon, and we watch the inspector
try to figure it out. This is much different from the other intelligent
crime-horror flicks of late: Se7en, Kiss the Girls and In Dreams
featured loonies we never met until late in the movie. The Watcher
told us who it was the whole time. But From Hell shows us the
killer, as well as several clues throughout the movie, but the
ending is still a surprise when Depp reveals it. How refreshing!
The plot also runs on several levels, adding in seemingly
disjointed pieces (Anne and the Masons, for example) yet putting it
all together at the end.
The ending of the movie is probably the most non-climactic ending
to a horror movie the last ten years. Strange that this movie builds
toward a climax that never happens, yet the ending still leaves
viewers satisfied.
But not all is well with From Hell:
Heather Graham isn't dirty enough. If she's a prostitute, then she
should be a dirty whore. But she's not. She's the clean-faced,
red-haired, smiling one that stays out of the fray while her friends
are slaughtered in unspeakable ways. After all the effort to make
the surroundings realistic, would a little charcoal on the cheeks
have been too much to ask?
Besides which, Heather Graham couldn't even act in Austin
Powers, what ever made the film makers believe she could act in
a horror-thriller based on semi-historical events and a
controversial novel? Sorry. Heather Graham joins Mira Sorvino in
failing the "first major serious role" test.
Someone in the editing room got a little too happy at the beginning
of the movie. At some point in the middle of a string of murders,
did someone not think to stop and say, "Hey but do you think
anyone would mind if we showed more than two uninterrupted
seconds of a single viewpoint?" In some cases, the splicing and
dicing of the film works, but it gets old pretty fast, and horror fans
may be wishing they could play some scenes in slow motion.
The ending is also a potential weak point. The nega-climactic
ending leaves the possibility for the audience to walk out of the
theatre with no lasting impression of the film, except a lot of dark.
This is dangerous. Bold and gutsy, and I subtract no points for it
since I found it appealing, but it is dangerous, none the less.
Overall, From Hell is the third excellent horror movie released this
year (Hannibal, The Others, sorry haven't seen Joy Ride or
Jeepers Creepers yet). It is dark and disturbing. The horror doesn't
work on a shock/scare factor, but rather on a psychological/fundamental level. Audiences won't scream in terror,
but many will find the movie horrifying. And in that sense, the
Hughes Brothers have created a rousing success.
9/10