From Hell

Stars: 2 / 10

Disappoints. Unbelievable, silly, predictable tripe. Depp doesn't even look English and his accent is awful!

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120681/?ref_=sr_1

Director: Albert Hughes and Allen Hughes
Year: 2001
Main Cast: Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Sir Ian Holm

Trailer

Expanded Review:

I've seen a handful of Jack the Ripper stories, and this is, hands down, the worst of the lot! How anyone could take such a fascinating, gruesome, and mysterious case and flush it down the toilet is astounding! I came close to walking away from this movie, several times, in its miserable 122 minutes of bullshit, but decided to stick it out, only out of curiosity: how much worse can it get?! And it does, I promise you, get worse with every stupid, plodding scene.

I'm all for fiction and fantasy, and I can excuse a film for taking certain creative liberties with a story (not everything in real life plays out well on screen,) however, From Hell's implausible and fanciful conclusions are totally disrespectful to the real-life victims and the factual history of the actual (and yet unsolved) case of Jack the Ripper... and the filmmakers certainly weren't bothered by portraying Freemasons as anything less than evil, demonic conjurers. Harrumph and bahumbug.

I realise that this film is based on a graphic novel, and as such, takes liberties with the facts. And... ? So what. Just because someone comes up with a crappy idea, writes it down and draws some illustrations to go with it, is no reason to turn that crap into a feature film.

Johnny Depp would have been my very-next-to-last choice for this role. Depp is a fine actor, a master of his craft, and this is the first role of his that I have not liked. In fact, he's one of my most favourite actors, ever, so the shock of this appalling performance cut me deep in the Depp love.

And Ian Holm, how could you?! How could you possibly sink so low... for shame! Usually the mark of excellence is upon a film when Sir Holm is involved. Where was the intensity and finesse that we all know this Shakespearean is capable of? They're nowhere to be found in this film, that's for sure.

As for Heather Graham... what can I say? I wasn't impressed before this movie, and I'm even less so now.

The wigs are awful. The music is forgettable. The script is ridiculous, with lame fantasy and several misconstrued facts. The acting is sub par, particularly considering that they had a stellar cast. The action scenes are boring and cliché. The effects are not at all special (the blood looks wholly unreal,) and not in a pig's eye would I ever sit through this tripe again.

You might as well save yourself from this colossal time-waster, and see "Jack the Ripper" (1988), with Michael Cane, instead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095388/?ref_=sr_1

Or, if you prefer a bit of Jack the Ripper history-meets-fantasy weirdness, check out "The Ruling Class" (1972), with Peter O'Toole: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069198/?ref_=sr_1

*** Star Rating Scale ***

How films are judged:

I rate films within their respective genres, and always consider the era in which they were made, judging a film on its own merits, as well as in contrast to others (within their genre.)

Though I try to be fair and balanced, a certain amount of personal bias does figure into the scores (of course.)

Stars : 0 - 10

0 : Unwatchable. This film is an unwatchable abomination. Consider it one of the worst movies that never should have been made. Whoever released it is a sadist. If I couldn't suffer through the whole thing, it's an instant 0.

1 : Garbage. Burn it and bury it! Unless you are being paid a King's ransom, this movie is never worth watching. Somehow, I managed to suffer through it, but there is nothing worthwhile about this movie. Nothing. Unless you are a glutton for punishment, don't waste your time.

2: Awful. This film is a stinkbomb. Hold your nose and run the other way! There was at least one scene or major element of the film that I liked, but overall, it's best used as fertilizer.

3: Bad. Mostly this movie is Awful, but there was at least one or two scenes that I liked, perhaps one actor's performance was well done, or some effort worth nodding to. It's still tripe, though.

4: Tolerable. It wasn't the worst movie, it even had a few ok scenes/qualities, but it had a lot of stink, too. This film is nothing special. I have no interest in ever seeing it again. Meh.

5: OK. I didn't love, nor hate it, outright. A take-it-or-leave-it film, but has some redeeming qualities. Typically it's not something I would want to own, but I suppose would watch it again, at least once.

6: Good. I liked it. It was entertaining and enjoyable, even if there were some major goofs or wonky bits, overall, it's a decent movie. Not much of a prize winner, it won't redefine it's genre, it won't change your life, but something in this film makes it worth watching. I would certainly recommend it to someone who loves its specific genre.

7: Distinctive. This film stands out amongst its peers. Something about this movie has greatness. There was some imperfection, but overall, this film was really well made. This film is memorable, and sticks with you. I recommend it, and it's something that I would definitely want to own.

8: Fantastic. An instant favourite. This film is exceptionally good! It's impressive, unique and beautifully produced, it raises the bar. A memorable film that stirs the mind and the emotions. You have to shake it off after you see it, because it teleports you into its world. You may find yourself thinking about it days, even months, afterwards. I highly recommend it, and it's certainly something I would want to own.

9: Practically Perfect. I love this film! It's rare to find a gem like this. Treasure it. Practically perfect in every way, you'll never tire of it, and every time you see it, it shines like diamonds. This unforgetable film will change the way you look at all others. Depending on the type of film, it may even influence your life. I definitely recommend it, and you can bet your bippy that I own it, in a special edition, whenever possible.

10: Perfection.

FAQ

Why do you write reviews?
-- I love film, and I like to share.

Why minimal reviews?
-- I like to review in a way that cuts to the heart of the matter.

I'm not going to give you a long-winded synopsis of the film, because trailers, official film websites, and IMDB already do that. I will tell you, in a nutshell, what's the premise of the film, and what I liked or didn't like about it.

Birth of the Blog:
I tweet about movies after I watch them, and thus, the idea of a blog with my minimal movie reviews was born. I wanted to collect my reviews in one easy-to-access place, as well as have the option to give an Expanded Review for some of the films.

My Twitter: https://twitter.com/BonnieSparkles

Why so many thrillers and horror movies?
-- I like the genres, so I watch a lot of them.

Where you do live?
-- central France

How/where do you watch these movies?
-- Online, mostly. Some I borrow from the library, some I own on disc, and some I saw in the theatre.

Have you studied film making?
-- Not in a professional sense, no. I took one "history of film" course at uni, I've read a handful of screenplays, books about how to write screenplays, and inumerable books and articles on film making and the history of films. I've watched thousands of films, as well as countless documentaries and interviews with/about film makers.

From Hell

0 comments :

Post a Comment

From Hell

Next

Newer Post

Previous

Older Post

0 comments :

Post a Comment