BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


SPOILER-FILLED "From Hell" Review

 
 
CameronStewart
01:24 / 21.10.01
Cross-posted at the WEF cos I can't be bothered to rewrite. Spoilers, spoilers everywhere.


"One day men will look back and say that i gave birth the the 20th Century..."
- Jack The Ripper, 1888


And so FROM HELL gets off to an immediate bad start by displaying the above words on a black screen, presenting - seemingly as fact - a fictional quote by a person who was never actually seen or heard by anybody, and as such is unable to be quoted.

I've seen a *lot* of poor films adapted from superior novels, but generally I shrug them off.

FROM HELL made me *angry.*

Even now, hours since I left the cinema, I'm still grinding my teeth at what a colossal disaster The Hughes' have made of the comic. It is a crass, superficial bastardization that demonstrates quite clearly, in my opinion, that the people involved with its creation didn't even fully understand the source material they were adapting.

I understand the need to condense a 500-odd page graphic novel in order to make a two-hour film. I appreciate that in order to do this characters must be omitted and combined, events reshuffled. I understand that what works in print doesn't necessarily work on film. But by their decision to restructure the story so that Gull's role as the killer is kept secret from the audience until the last 20 minutes they've completely *ignored* the entire purpose of Moore's story. At the end, Gull is being tried by a Masonic court for his crimes, and he tells his judges "none of you can understand the black art that I have wrought" (paraphrasing). Well, neither can the audience, because there's no attempt to explain it in any meaningful way.

Oh sure, there's nods to the comic throughout - oh look, there's a quick shot of Cleopatra's Needle! There's John Merrick! There's Christchurch! Here's Walter Sickert appearing for less than 10 seconds in a completely pointless "cameo"! But every reference to the comic is glib and superficial, completely without purpose or resonance, existing only to justify the tenuous link to the source material. Why even bother to claim heritage from the comic when they've completely thrown out everything that made it unique?

And completely aside from missing the entire raison d'etre of the comic, but something that's no less infuriating to me, is the complete lack of historical accuracy - yes, it's a work of fiction, but Moore was very careful to not contradict any established historical fact, and speculated what went on *behind and between* documented events. Here we have incorrect chronology, invented characters and events that have absolutely no basis in history but are only there to conform to the typical Hollywood action-thriller formula (cases in point: George Godley kicking a flaming barrel of gunpowder into a courtyard where it blows up reeeal good, creating a distraction so the newly-created-for-the-movie Evil Police Detective won't catch Abberline sneaking in to the top-secret file room to find evidence of the royal baby! Said Evil Detective kidnapping Abberline but in the ensuing struggle being killed in a (yawn) spectacular horse-and-carriage crash in the streets of London! Abberline's dramatic face-to-face showdown with the Ripper! Abberline's DEATH, for fuck's sake, from a heartbreak-inspired drug overdose at age 30! And more!) And while they pay so much attention to recreating the streets of 19th century London, and they hire the very best Queen Victoria and Prince Eddy lookalikes they can find, they blow it with characters like Gull and Sir Charles Warren, and even Abberline, that bear NO resemblence whatsoever to their real-life counterparts! REAL PHOTOGRAPHS of these people exist, for god's sake, would it kill them to check up on them?

Even assessing it as a film on its own merits turns up nothing of value - everyone but Ian Holm is woefully miscast, the soundtrack is intrusive and uninspired, the "whodunnit" plot they've constructed is surely incomprehensible to anyone who's not already familiar with the real events or the comic...it is an unmitigated piece of shit on every level. I had loooooow expectations going in, I knew it wouldn't be the same as the comic, but this is lower than I could have imagined.

Aggh....I could go on and on and on...but I won't. I'm tired.

The one positive thing is that the guy in front of me in the cinema heard me ranting about all this as the end credits were rolling and started asking questions about the comic - he seemed interested in finding a copy after hearing me go on about how much better it was....

[ 21-10-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
Ierne
03:41 / 21.10.01
Thanks for saving me $9.50!
 
 
Ronald Thomas Clontle
05:37 / 21.10.01
So, I ask this question: is the only possible way to get a faithful film adaption of a comic to be as good if not better than the source material, necessitate the author actually write the film as well, a la Daniel Clowes' Ghost World?

Is it otherwise completely hopeless?

I read one review that said something to the effect of the film being its own thing, and it actually standing up well on its own legs if you had never read the Moore/Campbell original.

But I don't know if I buy that...

I wasn't really into the comic, honestly, so I'm not terribly interested in seeing a lesser film version...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
18:22 / 21.10.01
Cheers, Cameron. Your bilious first post has satisfied me that I need never see this piece of shit, and has thus no doubt saved me from an ulcer. Virtual pints headed your way...
 
 
betty woo
22:01 / 21.10.01
I've been informed by several reliable sources that the only possible reason I should bother seeing this film is for a scene involving Johnny Depp getting drunk on absinthe in a bathtub. Doesn't really inspire confidence. On the plus side, most of the reviews I've seen have spent a great deal of time praising the comic and bitching about how the film butchers the source material, which will hopefully inspire more people to check out the original...
 
 
Seth
22:24 / 21.10.01
quote:George Godley kicking a flaming barrel of gunpowder into a courtyard where it blows up reeeal good, creating a distraction so the newly-created-for-the-movie Evil Police Detective won't catch Abberline sneaking in to the top-secret file room to find evidence of the royal baby!



quote:Said Evil Detective kidnapping Abberline but in the ensuing struggle being killed in a (yawn) spectacular horse-and-carriage crash in the streets of London!



quote:Abberline's dramatic face-to-face showdown with the Ripper!



quote:Abberline's DEATH, for fuck's sake, from a heartbreak-inspired drug overdose at age 30!



quote:And more!



 
 
Sensual Cobra
03:13 / 22.10.01
I think Cameron pretty much covered it - the epigraph by "Jack the Ripper" made me weep openly. The worst part was being teased by those tenuous connections to the graphic novel - "Oh, there's Cleopatra's needle!" - that are never followed up on. I cringed through the entire thing hoping there would at least be some justification for the "I gave birth to the Twentieth Century," but the ideas behind what appeared onscreen were so jumbled I tossed it all out as shite.

Even NOT comparing it to Moore, I can't recommend it.

And Jebus, why make Abberline a psychic/whatever? It seemed an excuse for more "surreal" eyecandy editing and Plot-Hole Fixer-Upper. Minus points for disemboweling the last chapter in keeping Gull's flash to his anatomy class but ditching his flash-forward to the 20th century to which he "gave birth," including the monologue going a long way to explain that idea.

From Hell 2: A young Vincent Bugliosi (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) hunts psychadelic madman Charles Manson (Billy Bob Thornton). Bugliosi falls in love with Squeaky Fromme (Robin Williams in women's clothing) who is then murdered by Manson in an attempt to "give birth to the Era of Disco." Bugliosi confronts Manson in the Haunted Amusement Park, tearing off Manson's mask to reveal the Dutchess of Windsor, who then escapes on a rocketship.
 
 
Ethan Hawke
11:39 / 22.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Reality Is Psychosomatic:

From Hell 2: A young Vincent Bugliosi (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) hunts psychadelic madman Charles Manson (Billy Bob Thornton). Bugliosi falls in love with Squeaky Fromme (Robin Williams in women's clothing) who is then murdered by Manson in an attempt to "give birth to the Era of Disco." Bugliosi confronts Manson in the Haunted Amusement Park, tearing off Manson's mask to reveal the Dutchess of Windsor, who then escapes on a rocketship.


Please write this! It would be incredibly good. I'm not kidding. You just have to add the Son of Sam as a young child in there (a la Crowley in From Hell).
 
 
CameronStewart
16:22 / 22.10.01
>>>Minus points for disemboweling the last chapter in keeping Gull's flash to his anatomy class but ditching his flash-forward to the 20th century to which he "gave birth," <<<

You know, I think of how brilliant the film could have been in the right hands, if Gull's vision of being transported to a modern-day office had been filmed by someone like Stanley Kubrick, and it just makes me want to cry.

Apparently the film is number one at the box office. I'm curious how many people who contributed to that will bother to read the comic...

[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
Hieronymus
16:48 / 22.10.01
Is it true that in the movie they have Abberline run off with Mary Kelly in a whirlwind romance?
 
 
CameronStewart
17:08 / 22.10.01
Well, the relationship between Mary and Abberline has its roots in the comic, but there it's kept very subtle and low-key. In the film, however, it's cranked up to eleven, with an excruciatingly painful scene in which Mary, bosoms heaving, is grabbed by Abberline and they kiss passionately as the romantic music swells triumphantly in the background...


Thankfully, however, they don't have the ending I was expecting, which was Abberline and Mary living Happily Ever After together. She still escapes the Ripper, as in the comic, and goes back to Ireland, but Abberline, so overcome with grief that he can never be with his beloved, overdoses on opium.

The fact that the real Fred Abberline lived well into his seventies is, to the filmmakers, apparently unimportant.

[ 22-10-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
CameronStewart
17:15 / 22.10.01
Another interesting element of the film is that we never once see Mary Kelly engage in her professional duties - not even a verbal reference. While the other whores are middle-aged, toothless, and covered in filth, and are seen enagaged in degrading sex acts in dirty alleys, Mary is spotlessly clean, beautiful, and virginal....
 
 
Mr Tricks
17:39 / 23.10.01
Well...

While I don't disagree with what's being said... I still enjoyed watching it...

The best parts of course where the Opium & Absneth scenes... actually every drug scene was cool.

Yeah... I left imagining all the possible scene I would have included & why. Ultimately the Movie in my head was Far better than the one I saw on the screen...
 
 
Saint Keggers
01:54 / 24.10.01
I just got back from seeing the movie about 2 hours ago. I havent read the comic so my opinion is based on only the film...


It could have been way better...

Ian Holm???? I kept seeing him in his damn Fifth Element role...he was well cast in that one..what the hell went wrong here....

Johny Depp...can we say Sleepy Hollow is over, get a new role???
And whats-er-name..the roller girl chick...
Oy! Im a brittish whore and lookit 'ow shoinny and clean my hair is..and isnt it a lovely shade of......????? May I have a few quid to go and getsome acting lessons??

Anyone now if there's any historical fact to the mason elelment to it?
 
 
bio k9
08:19 / 28.10.01
I never read threads that have spoilers in them until I've actually seen the movie, read the book, whatever. Thats about to change. You could have saved us $14.
The worst part was having to explain why I thought it was so bad. The movie was two hours, my explanation of why I hated it went on for the rest of the night; long afer everyone quit listening to me, I'm sure. The comic was about magic, religion, architecture and history. The movie was about a guy in a fancy top hat killing prositiutes (all except the pretty virginal one).
 
 
MJ-12
08:55 / 28.10.01
quote:Originally posted by PATricky:
The best parts of course where the Opium & Absneth scenes... actually every drug scene was cool.


'anyone else just get a mental image of Cheech & Chong's From Hell?
 
 
Lothar Tuppan
13:28 / 29.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Flux = VVX232:
So, I ask this question: is the only possible way to get a faithful film adaption of a comic to be as good if not better than the source material, necessitate the author actually write the film as well, a la Daniel Clowes' Ghost World?




Only if the author can actually write a good screenplay. While similar, they are different styles and if the author does a poor job at it then the movie will still suck.

Expressionless: You are the Graemlin master with your mighty computer magicks.
 
 
Sensual Cobra
05:01 / 30.10.01
quote:You know, I think of how brilliant the film could have been in the right hands, if Gull's vision of being transported to a modern-day office had been filmed by someone like Stanley Kubrick, and it just makes me want to cry.

I agree. I get tired of seeing movies made BY simpletons, FOR simpletons, or some bastard-child combination of the two. Rip out all the intelligent parts of a fascinating story, reduce it to the most common themes, change the tone by following the characters who the story was NOT about, and then tease me by suggesting 1.) yeah, we know this is a pile, but here's some token "intellectual" references we threw in to keep you happy - you can rewrite the bad parts on your own or 2.) we really think we're doing good work here, by skimming over history, magic, conspiracy, etc., and mentioning Cleopatra's Needle in passing and "Ohmigod, a pentacle! = Masons!" ought to be enough for you. Could you be more condescending?

From Hell was an amalgamation of history, the occult, JTR: The Final Solution, and Moore's own psyche - something greater than the sum of its parts. The movie manages to be an inferior copy of an interpretation, like a kid writing a book report from a copy of the Cliff Notes missing several hundred key pages.

quote:Anyone now if there's any historical fact to the mason elelment to it?

Mostly derived from Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution by Stephen Knight. If you read the Appendix (right? The Dance of The Gull Catchers - Epilogue, maybe - it's in the back anyway) you get a pretty good feel for the kind of guy Knight was and what most people thought of his theory. That said, Knight, the Masons, and conspiracy theory in general occupy a kind of historical greyspace where evidence isn't nearly as important as interpretation.
 
 
SMS
23:49 / 30.10.01
I enjoyed the film. I keep telling people that the book was brilliant, and the movie was pretty fun.
 
 
Hieronymus
05:15 / 31.10.01
Bleh. Any flick that excises the murder of Mary Kelly as the worst of the five ghastly eviscerations is, in this Ripper nut's opinion, a steaming pile of bullshit. How many times is history going to be not just rewritten but utterly crapped on in the name of the story? I ended up loaning my Ripper book to friends who honestly believed that dear old Mary Kelly came out just dandy. Grrrr. Is that falsehood in the comic too?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:11 / 31.10.01
It's implied, yes.

Wargh! A work of fiction that may deviate from historical accuracy! Burn all copies, I reckon.
 
 
Hieronymus
15:10 / 31.10.01
Which wouldn't be so bad, Flyboy, if I wasn't swamped with reports of Moore's "anal-retentive accuracy" in sticking to the facts of the case.

quote:ALAN MOORE: For example, with From Hell, there is nothing that actually contradicts anything that was said to be true. It doesn't actually contradict the reported sequence of events, and quite dubious events as well are also brought into that pattern.

Mary Kelly's murder was the most gruesome and the most documented of the 5. . It represented Jack's killings at their fever pitch. Alone with a victim in a private location as opposed to alleyways and courtyards. To leave that out for 'dramatic license' is a bit like writing that JFK's head simply exploded due to his overindulgence in amphetamines. Or better yet, that JFK is still alive and having a pint with Elvis. Oooo! What a lovely little ending. You can write it, sure. But it doesn't make it any less insipid.

Next by Mr. Moore, Jack the Ripper as a time traveller and dinosaur hunter. Yeah! That'll bring in the kids who love time travel. And dinosaurs.

[ 31-10-2001: Message edited by: Sidney Sometimes ]
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:25 / 31.10.01
Clarification: Moore doesn't "leave out" the Mary Kelly murder. It's graphically detailed for an entire chapter. However, it is strongly implied that the identity of the victim is not in fact Mary Kelly...
 
 
Hieronymus
15:37 / 31.10.01
Ha! Now I have to read this thing. Who does it "imply" the fifth victim was?
 
 
CameronStewart
04:23 / 01.11.01
Sidney, we're talking about a corpse that was mutilated beyond recognition - you've seen the photo, her face is literally gone - at a period in history long before fingerprinting, DNA testing, etc. The body is really only identified as Kelly's because it's a woman and in her room.

However, there was one witness, whose testimony is a matter of record, who claimed to see Kelly alive several hours after the time she would have had to have been killed. Moore uses this convenience in his fiction, allowing the final victim to be a friend of Mary's staying in her room while Mary goes out working.

As everything else, in the book it's clever and subtle (it took several readings before it clicked), but in the film it's made explicitly clear for the dullards.

I find it strange that a self-professed "Ripper nut" would not have read FROM HELL, and further be ready to tear it apart without having read it - it's only universally acclaimed as one of the greatest works of comics literature ever written...

[ 01-11-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
Hieronymus
15:04 / 01.11.01
Primarily because it deals with the Freemason/ Royalty conspiracy, a nifty little made-up story that was refuted as pure unadulterated fiction years ago in Rumbelow's Casebook. But people still cling to that idea because it makes a much better epic drama than one lone lunatic slicing up whores. I've read Final Solution. I doubt I need to read Moore's regurgitation of it. But, just for grins, when I have money to throw around, I'll certainly pick it up. I just won't take it anymore seriously than I did Knight's wonky theories. Crap like that and this flick twist the historical facts beyond recognition. That's my only real complaint.
 
 
deja_vroom
15:39 / 01.11.01
Who cares about history? If good literature comes out of it, then it's worth reading the goddamn thing.
 
 
Hieronymus
16:57 / 01.11.01
<sets to work on a literary masterpiece about how the Holocaust was all a hoax>


I guess the question is how much deviation from the reality of an actual event is tolerable when done through fiction?

[ 01-11-2001: Message edited by: Sidney Sometimes ]
 
 
CameronStewart
19:10 / 01.11.01
>>>Primarily because it deals with the Freemason/ Royalty conspiracy, a nifty little made-up story that was refuted as pure unadulterated fiction years ago in Rumbelow's Casebook.<<<

So what? Moore never once makes any claims that his story is true - it's FICTION, and he's the first to say so. He never contradicts established facts, but he does fill in the blanks between. He uses the Mason/Gull/Conspiracy theory as a frame upon which he hangs his tale. He even addresses the fallacy of the Gull theory in the final chapter.

The book isn't merely about Jack The Ripper. It's about history, magic, architecture, and the repression of women, among other things. Just read the damn thing before you shit all over it, okay? It really weakens your argument if you don't.

And there's a world of difference between 5 unsolved murders - emphasis on unsolved, and the holocaust. It's a crass and useless analogy.

[ 01-11-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]
 
 
CameronStewart
19:24 / 01.11.01
Incidentally, several years back when I lived in London, I went on a Jack The Ripper walking tour led by Donald Rumbelow himself. I asked him about the Gull theory and you know what he said? He didn't get all mad and dismissive, as you are, he merely said:

"It's a good story."
 
 
Hieronymus
00:48 / 02.11.01
Somebody needs a hug.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:33 / 02.11.01
Somebody else needs a kick in the face.
 
 
Hieronymus
14:50 / 02.11.01
I'm sure you would, Flyboy.
 
 
bio k9
11:54 / 03.11.01
Let me get my boots...
 
  
Add Your Reply