Rather too old for my 5 year old Daughter, who I took to see it, because of the extensive dialogue driven plot as well as the dialogue based humour (rather low key humour at that) of much of the running time.
The almost other-worldly tempo of the dialogue deliver also made for a rather lethargic experience, so I say this is one for the older child. Though she still enjoyed the film, it did not have the effect that "Ice Age 3" or "Bolt" had on her.
But the occasional action was fun and well executed technically (nice to see good old fashioned stop motion) and if the character's body shape and ways of moving were damn strange at times, it fitted with the overall 'story book come to life' feel of the movie.
Different and generally entertaining, but really for older kids and fans of Roald Dahl's book.
"Ripper"
Hmmmm....After a pretty good opening this then gets rather plodding (long running time for a horror film actually) for a while until coming to life again.
A killer sees to be offing obnoxious student types in ways similar to Jack the Ripper.
It has a few bloody moments and keeps you guessing.
The finale is chaotic, reveal filled, fun and the very end....well....seems to have really been the thing that has given this film any sort of profile.
I for one thought that very final twist (simply a 2 second scene before the credits) was pretty easy to understand and that the movie had a perfectly satisfying explanation.
But it seems other people have other ideas and much debate still goes on on-line.
A forgotten and generally hated sequel has a continuing (though not needed, the first film does end) plot that seems to confirm the obvious as well.
Not bad. Just average fare.
"From Hell"
Blimey. A film filled with good moments that still manages to defeat itself with so many avoidable bad ones.
My biggest gripe with this (and annoying surprise, as I had not read the Moore comic or heard about the film's plot) is that it re-does (YET AGAIN!!) the widely discredited to extinction theory that the 'Jack the Ripper' murders were to do with the Royal Family.
This idea was flitting around for a few years but not until the wacky self-publicist Stephen Knight wrote the infamous "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" did it truly take hold as Knight was a pretty good storyteller and added lots of really juicy rubbish to the basic conspiracy by involving high up people and The Masons.
Despite endless tomes (all pretty much dubious research, speculation and manipulation themselves) utterly blowing apart Knight's theory and Knight himself called out for blatantly ignoring known facts that did not back up his theory...this is without doubt the most successful and enduring Ripper myth even today.
As well as Knight's book there was TV 'documentary' of his ideas (used on the "From Hell" DVD extras, which ironically also shoots down this conspiracy that "From Hell" uses!), another book defense of it (badly done and full of falsehoods) in 1991 and of course the (otherwise quite clever,entertaining, and very atmospheric) film version of the 'Royal link', that also added Sherlock Holmes, "Murder by Decree".
There was also a, pre-Knights version, retelling of the basic theory in another Holmes vs The Ripper flick "A Study in Terror".
So excuse me if I did not need another version of it all with "From Hell"!
The film also shoots itself in the foot by using this theory because many of the audience, such a film targets, will already know it. And yet it foolishly uses this widely known idea for its mystery, whodunnit, plot!
When many of the audience, who know about The Ripper anyway, already know more than your lead detective character...all is not well.
And the fact the film has the actual Ripper as the same real life person that Knight uses...means that when the screenplay tries to set up other suspects it gets a bit tedious.
But saying that, even if you did not know this myth, a stupendously silly sound clue would give it away any way.
Best not to have the shadowed/off frame Ripper speak with the same very distinctive voice of one of your actors playing one of the suspects! You know who Jack is as soon as he speaks.
Another fault is the ludicrous and pointless 'totally black eyes' the killer suddenly has during the big reveal!
What the hell is this? Reality based or a damn supernatural story!
Whose eyes, no matter how psychotic, suddenly turn into two black orbs!?
Johnny Depp himself is also a weak link thanks to his bad accent. His acting is alright and he looks great as a sexed up Inspector Abberline but when he speaks its rather comical thanks to his Cockney accent.
His English accent got much better for "The Libertine" and even "Pirates". But here it's not good.
Also not too good is the fact that despite all the excellent set design and cinematography to make an authentic Victorian London...The Hughes Brothers then go and stock it with Heather Graham's radiant, flawless face!
Poor, Victorian street whore!? Looks more like Max Factor to me.
The Mary Kelley she portrays was the most attractive of the unfortunate women...but that was definitely relative!
"A Study in Terror" did the same silly thing with its sexed up, glowing, buxom wenches too (Babs Windsor anyone!) but that was in the 1960's!
The finale 'twist' (the very end scene aside) is also very obvious, and we never really expected anything else as we had already surmised The Hughes Brothers simply were not brave enough to do anything else.
Despite all that, there are some excellent sequences involving Depp annoying the establishment figures (a nice turn by the sadly late Ian Richardson as Warren), a few moments of choice gore and nastiness (including a genuinely shocking throat slitting), a nice turn by Robbie Coltrane and indeed most of the support cast and bags of atmosphere, though as far as that goes "Murder by Decree" has it beat during the truly frightening and shocking final death reconstruction.
So a lot of time, effort and money spent on a basic plot idea that's so well used and known the movie lacks any real suspense (though Alan Moore avoided most of the film's mistakes by not making the story a mystery any way, as he reveals who 'Jack' is from the start) and when added to its own, in house, faults mean "From Hell" is simply an average slice (ha ha) of entertainment and sadly not the definitive 'Jack the Ripper' film it could have been with all that talent and support to work with.









