From Hell (Jack The Ripper movie)**SPOILER ALERT!!!**

[Dainspectah]

Just curious has anybody bought the limited double disc DVD of the movie From Hell? Is it worth the money?

Also, to all the Jack The Ripper enthusiasts, is the movie accurate or close to being accurate? I saw the movie a while ago, and the killer turned out to be some 70+ yr old doctor. And did JTR really have an accomplice during his killing spree?

Let me know, Wherehouse music store is selling the DVD brand new for $15 (they filed for bankruptcy).

[Musashi74]

Depends...

As a fan of the graphic novel, I found the film to be quite disappointing, though it's certainly one of the better 'Ripper' films out there.

If you really want the film, definitely spring for the 2-disc version. The coolest feature on the disc, acutually, is an Easter Egg...the entire 1 hr BBC special based on the film (and the graphic novel's) source material, Stephen Knight's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' is hidden on there. Though it's waaay cheezy, it's still a lot of fun. Knight comes across as a total weenie, though

As far as the film's 'accuracy', it's about as accurate as you'd expect from a film based on a comic book based on a piece of exploitative fiction. Most serious 'Ripperologists' tend to take Knight's theory that William Gull was the killer with a large dose of salt, owing largely to Gull's poor physical condition at the time of the murders (thanks to a stroke which left him partially paralyzed). Knight's assumption was that, becuase the killings were largely the result of a conspiracy, and that the infirm Gull was picked to be the 'trigger-man' so to speak, he was given an accomplice to help him carry out his task. Alan Moore's account in the graphic novel is much more interesting, though equally falsified, though Moore and the Hughes' Brothers' went to great pains to faithfully record many details surrounding the crime.

Stephen Knight is generally thought to have been trying to stir up controversy and line his pockets at the same time. His theory is intriguing, but holds little water. Interestingly enough, a recent Vanity Fair article fingered painter Walter Sickert as the killer (whose son supposedly supplied Knight with the information that led him to Gull).

I'd also like to point out that the real Abberline was not an opium addict as portrayed in the film, nor was he psychic. Abberline's prediliction for 'chasing the dragon' was entirely a fabrication of the Hughes Brothers, and his psychic abilities came about as the result of a little charcater manipulation, as the psychic in the graphic novel was an acquaintance of Abberline's named Mr. Lees who is clearly a fraud. I only bring this up because, if I were a descendant of Mr. Abberline, I'd be highly agitated.

(Curiously enough, Stephen Knight, after being subjected to much pressure from the Royal Family to rescind his story, did in fact claim that his book was all false. Shortly thereafter, Knight was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, at which point he reversed his position, and maintained it's truth to his deathbed...hmm...)

Alan Moore's fantastic From Hell coda 'Dance of the Gull Catchers' is a wonderful visual essay on the preponderance of suspects and Ripper-exposers.

Anyway, I'd say that, yes, the 2-disc version is worth picking up, and that no, it's not very accurate.

[downhuman]

A beautiful looking and sounding disc. And since the Director's Edition is out of print you might want to swipe that one up while you've got the chance. 15 dollars is probably the best you'll see.

As far as accuracy goes, it's purely subjective. The facts surrounding the case itself are pretty sparse so the story serves as just a theory (and what a wild one it is) of what could have happened with the known facts serving as the narrative lynchpin.

[a.bunker]

You may find it used at Blockbuster but with a different case.

Knowing nothing about the story of Jack the Ripper, I thought it was pretty decent.

[SeanL]

The 2 disc version is DEFINITELY the version to get. I'm not really up on Ripper lore, so I don't know how much fact there is in the "who and why" part of the story, but the locations(sets) of the murders are exact replicas of the real places.

[Buffalo Bill]

Tied with the Miyazaki 3 pack as the best blind purchase I've ever made. The Limited Collector's Edition is SO well worth the purchase I couldn't recommend it any higher. SeanL is right. GET IT.

[sub780lime]

if your going to buy it, buy the 2 disc, the dvd had a number of good featurettes and a lot of very interesting/semi informative features

[Dainspectah]

Originally posted by Musashi74
Depends...

As a fan of the graphic novel, I found the film to be quite disappointing, though it's certainly one of the better 'Ripper' films out there.

If you really want the film, definitely spring for the 2-disc version. The coolest feature on the disc, acutually, is an Easter Egg...the entire 1 hr BBC special based on the film (and the graphic novel's) source material, Stephen Knight's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' is hidden on there. Though it's waaay cheezy, it's still a lot of fun. Knight comes across as a total weenie, though

As far as the film's 'accuracy', it's about as accurate as you'd expect from a film based on a comic book based on a piece of exploitative fiction. Most serious 'Ripperologists' tend to take Knight's theory that William Gull was the killer with a large dose of salt, owing largely to Gull's poor physical condition at the time of the murders (thanks to a stroke which left him partially paralyzed). Knight's assumption was that, becuase the killings were largely the result of a conspiracy, and that the infirm Gull was picked to be the 'trigger-man' so to speak, he was given an accomplice to help him carry out his task. Alan Moore's account in the graphic novel is much more interesting, though equally falsified, though Moore and the Hughes' Brothers' went to great pains to faithfully record many details surrounding the crime.

Stephen Knight is generally thought to have been trying to stir up controversy and line his pockets at the same time. His theory is intriguing, but holds little water. Interestingly enough, a recent Vanity Fair article fingered painter Walter Sickert as the killer (whose son supposedly supplied Knight with the information that led him to Gull).

I'd also like to point out that the real Abberline was not an opium addict as portrayed in the film, nor was he psychic. Abberline's prediliction for 'chasing the dragon' was entirely a fabrication of the Hughes Brothers, and his psychic abilities came about as the result of a little charcater manipulation, as the psychic in the graphic novel was an acquaintance of Abberline's named Mr. Lees who is clearly a fraud. I only bring this up because, if I were a descendant of Mr. Abberline, I'd be highly agitated.

(Curiously enough, Stephen Knight, after being subjected to much pressure from the Royal Family to rescind his story, did in fact claim that his book was all false. Shortly thereafter, Knight was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer, at which point he reversed his position, and maintained it's truth to his deathbed...hmm...)

Alan Moore's fantastic From Hell coda 'Dance of the Gull Catchers' is a wonderful visual essay on the preponderance of suspects and Ripper-exposers.

Anyway, I'd say that, yes, the 2-disc version is worth picking up, and that no, it's not very accurate.

Musashi74, who do you think JTR was? And can you recommand any books for the beginners like me? There's so many books out there dont know which is worth the $$$.

I recently saw a book about JTR that talked about his dealings with Black magic. The author suspected Dr. Robert Donston Stephenson to be the killer. And there's some other book that states JTR was a famous painter. Any recommended JTR websites?

[nimrod's son]

Here's probably the latest book, called Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed. I haven't read it, but have heard that the author spent millions in research (it's Patricia Cornwell, who specializes in forensic something-or-other).

Here's a blurb:

Jack the Ripper was renowned artist Walter Sickert (1860-1942) according to Cornwell, in case anyone hasn't yet heard. The evidence Cornwell accumulates toward that conclusion in this brilliant, personal, gripping book is very strong, and will persuade many. In May 2001, Cornwell took a tour of Scotland Yard that interested her in the Ripper case, and in Sickert as a suspect. A look at Sickert's "violent" paintings sealed her interest, and she became determined to apply, for the first time ever, modern investigatory and forensic techniques to the crimes that horrified London more than 100 years ago. The book's narrative is complex, as Cornwell details her emotional involvement in the case; re-creates life in Victorian times, particularly in the late 1880s, and especially the cruel existence of the London poor; offers expertly observed scenarios of how, based on the evidence, the killings occurred and the subsequent investigations were conducted; explains what was found by the team of experts she hired; and gives a psycho-biography of Sickert. The book is filled with newsworthy revelations, including the successful use of DNA analysis to establish a link between an envelope mailed by the Ripper and two envelopes used by Sickert. There are also powerful comparisons made between Sickert's drawing style and that of the Ripper; between words and turns of phrases used by both men; and much other circumstantial evidence. Also newsworthy is Cornwell's conclusion that Sickert continued to kill long after the Ripper supposedly lay down his blade, reaping dozens of victims over his long life. Compassionate, intense, superbly argued, fluidly written and impossible to put down, this is the finest and most important true-crime book to date of the 21st century.

[Dainspectah]

Originally posted by nimrod's son
Here's probably the latest book, called Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed. I haven't read it, but have heard that the author spent millions in research (it's Patricia Cornwell, who specializes in forensic something-or-other).

Here's a blurb:

Yep, thats one of the books i was talking about where she mentions JTR was a famous painter. There was alot of mixed reviews about this book at amazon.com.

Checkout this JTR site, its the best one i can find. It gives good reviews about all the JTR books ever published, and alot more stuff about him as well:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...ews/index.html

Here's a review of the book you just mentioned:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media.../cornwell.html

[corndawg]

Originally posted by Dainspectah
Let me know, Wherehouse music store is selling the DVD brand new for $15 (they filed for bankruptcy).

Hey, I got my 2-disc copy at the Wherehose closing event, too! 50% off 29.99 for $15. Really good deal. If you haven't gotten it yet, you'd better grab it before it's gone. I'm surprised they even had it left where you're at, considering there's only like, 2 days left before the final closing. The 3 stores that I live by all have crap left (I guess b/c now everything's 80% off). But I got really good deals on The Gift, Girlfight, Titan AE, Tigerland, and of course From Hell.

[Musashi74]

Originally posted by nimrod's son
Here's probably the latest book, called Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper -- Case Closed. I haven't read it, but have heard that the author spent millions in research (it's Patricia Cornwell, who specializes in forensic something-or-other).

Patricia Cornwell is the woman whose theory appeared in Vanity Fair and fingered Walter Sickert as the killer. Like Stephen Knight before her, Cornwell's hypothesis is likely incorrect. Several people have debunked many of her claims (among them was that Sickert used the same stationery that the famous 'Dear Boss' letter was written on...which is a farcical connection at best, since the stationery used for the famous letter was in common usage at the time, and I believe something like 30% of the population of London would have likely had the same stock in their household).

In any case, Dainspectah, Cornwell's book probably isn't the best place to look if you're trying to find a good, factual account of the murders. I can't suggest a single book for Ripper lore, but Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper is highly recommended, and actually, if you can locate a copy of Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, it's actually an entertaining read (just be careful you don't follow Knight into too many rabbit holes

As for my own theory as to who the killer was, I really have no idea. I don't think that truly compelling evidence to point to the killer's identity has ever surfaced. Kind of a cop-out, I guess, but I can't say that I'd pass judgement on any of the men fingered for the crime if given half a chance. The real killer at this point is moot. As Moore points out in Dance of the Gull Catchers, the Ripper Case resembles a Koch's Snowflake of increasing complexity, which never quite resolves itself. The chase has become more important than the solution.

[spot778]

Agreed, Patricia Cornwell's book has been pretty widely panned both for it's writting and "evidence". That being said I haven't read it, but it's not a new theory, it's made the rounds before.

[FurryHumanBeing]

I got my copy @ Spun for only $9.98. So if you want to save a couple bucks you can order a used, but always in great condition, copy at http://www.spun.com/movies/product-d...jsp?id=2145172 plus it beats a Blockbuster DVD cause it'll have the same case and it's insert.

[El Lancito]

From an interview that I read with Alan Moore, he didn't seem to think that he had a very plausible version of who was the Ripper either. He was just going on a "what if" premise and ran with it from there.

As a Ripperfile myself, I think that the movie was pretty accurate when it came down to who was killed, how they were killed, and the horrible conditions of Whitechapel at the time. (Actually, the movie toned it down a bit.) Read Donald Rumbelow's (spelling?) "The Complete Jack the Ripper." If you're ever in London, be sure to check out the Jack the Ripper Walking Tour. Rumbelow was the guide on the one I went on nearly 10 years ago.

There were all sorts of specific details in the movie that were right out of the original case. For instance, there was a sign written in chalk on a wall that read "The Jewes are not the ones who will be blamed for nothing" (or something to that effect.) Not only that, but the police erased it before it could be properly examined or a photo could be taken.

Moore and the Hughes Brothers took a lot of actual bits of history and extrapolated on it to create their own work of fiction.

So...to make a short answer long, the few actual facts were all used, but a layer of fiction was put on top of it all.

To answer the other question: Should you buy it? Definitely! It's a great flick...creepy as all get out and it gets better with multiple viewings. The bonus stuff is cool too.

[Musashi74]

Originally posted by spot778
Agreed, Patricia Cornwell's book has been pretty widely panned both for it's writting and "evidence". That being said I haven't read it, but it's not a new theory, it's made the rounds before.

Yeah, precisely. In fact, her version is very much a permutation of Knight's hypothesis. Stephen Knight claimed that Sickert's son Joseph told him of the 'Royal Conspiracy' involving Prince Edwards' illegitimate son; Sickert's father and Edward were supposedly in cahoots in Eddies indiscretions. Ms. Cornwell has shifted the suspect from Gull (who was the Royal Physician at the time, and furthermore a high-ranking member of the Freemasons) to Sickert, whom Cornwell claims 'confessed' in many of his paintings. Granted, a great deal of Sickert's work is disturbing, and does in fact seem 'tainted' by the Ripper murders, but this is hardly a rock-solid case of guilt.

Still, if you're looking to base a film or graphic novel on the case, Knight's hypothesis provides the most fertile soil for dramatic convention.

[Dainspectah]

Originally posted by Musashi74
Yeah, precisely. In fact, her version is very much a permutation of Knight's hypothesis. Stephen Knight claimed that Sickert's son Joseph told him of the 'Royal Conspiracy' involving Prince Edwards' illegitimate son; Sickert's father and Edward were supposedly in cahoots in Eddies indiscretions. Ms. Cornwell has shifted the suspect from Gull (who was the Royal Physician at the time, and furthermore a high-ranking member of the Freemasons) to Sickert, whom Cornwell claims 'confessed' in many of his paintings. Granted, a great deal of Sickert's work is disturbing, and does in fact seem 'tainted' by the Ripper murders, but this is hardly a rock-solid case of guilt.

Still, if you're looking to base a film or graphic novel on the case, Knight's hypothesis provides the most fertile soil for dramatic convention.

Just curious, was the part about the grapes being found on the victims fiction or a fact?

[wahlers]

Just curious, was the part about the grapes being found on the victims fiction or a fact?

99.99% fiction.

The fact is that one one of the victims, a grape-stem was noticed in the gutter (along with much other trash) where the body was laying, but was not on or overly near the body or anything.

No other grape-stems noticed or mentioned in regards to the murders at all...

[Kevin P]

Does it really matter WHO did the killings... the answer died a long time ago with the @#$% killer and the innocent butcher victims. Nothing is going change what happen to these ladies by determining the killer!

Personnally it troubles me when people seem to be more interested and pay more attention to a cold-blooded killer(s) then the victims who died some horrorably... makes you wonder why people still continue to kill others... for celebrity status and immortality thur history all at the lose of someone else life!?!?

I don't think any normal person would want the killer of someone close to them to be of any topic or conversation or movie! Its kinda like rewarding for something unbelievely evil and bad!

"whats your point?" ...what did you take from the movie?

[wahlers]

It's a little different with the distance of time.

The point you're making should be directed at all of the crappy made-for-TV movies about current killers...

This movie was more about a fictional killer than it was about a real one (since we don't know who it is).

If we did know, I don't think there'd be as much attention.

And, honestly, a lot of people find Jack the Ripper intriguing in the sense of trying to figure out who he was.

This kind of mindset is sort of a way of figuring that, if we find out how he was able to not be caught, it could help detective work currently.

Granted, if they had the ability to fingerprint at the time and had our methods now, they probably would have caught him. But, he would have been aware of those methods being available and may have been able to avoid being caught that way, etc., etc.

Also, if those women hadn't have been killed, would anybody even be discussing them?

I don't think so. Their lives would have just been lost in all the hundreds of other whores on their streets.

At least, having been victims, their lives are discussed, and people can see them for more than just their occupations. Isn't there something to be said about that?

[Musashi74]

Kevin, you raise a serious and valid point.

However, I think you miss the point. I don't know what it is in the human character that confuses depiction with advocacy. The crimes committed by Jack the Ripper are worthy of discussion, and perhaps even dramatization.

To have been a murdered prostitute in London's East End in the late 19th century was by no means an oddity...nothing about the way these women ended up is at all odd, except that they form the nexus of an evil act perpetrated by a sick and twisted mind, which consequently was never solved.

To my mind, that is definitely worth thinking about.

I understand the point you are making; I myself lost someone very close to me as the result of a violent crime this last October. In no way would I want their murderer glorified in the manner you describe.

I think its important to note that, had the Hughes Brothers stuck closer to the graphic novel's narrative intent, the 'Ripper' as depicted in the From Hell movie would likely have been a much more vile human being, and less likely to be interpreted as a 'glorification'. By turning him into a 'man of mystery', the Hughes' Brothers have created a portrait of a demented genius more along the lines of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Professor Moriarity than the twisted, depraved, damaged freak portrayed in Alan Moore's original graphic novel.

I've also mentioned earlier in this thread that the Huges' Brothers did a disservice to the 'real' Detective Abberline, who was not the absinthe-addicted opium-head depicted in the film. And I won't even bother to mention the besmirched character of Dr. William Withey Gull, who has taken the fall for Stephen Knight, Alan Moore, and now the Hughes' Brothers.

Anyway, I think less of the 'From Hell' film than some other sources of Ripper-lore. The Hughes' Brothers film basically took Moore's novel, which stands as a very powerful glimpse into the architecture of evil, and transformed it into a lightweight piece of pop entertainment. It's still interesting, but not particularly noteworthy.

And as you have pointed out yourself, since Jack the Ripper was never caught, it's kind of hard to 'glorify' him. There's really no 'him' to glorify. Again, I refer interested parties to Alan Moore's 'From Hell' epilogue, 'Dance of the Gull Catchers', which is an excellent essay on the nature of Ripperology and the fascination with the identity of the killer(s).

[Kevin P]

Oops... my intention was not to weigh down this discussion of the great movie... I to enjoy the movie as a mystery.

Thanks for understanding my point Musashi74... sorry to hear of your loss. Although I've not lost someone to a violent crime... at times, i find it odd to listen to people's fascination of people who commit horrible crimes. I hate front page news of killers... while decent people are ignored.

I don't agree with the statement about the prostitutes ...that their lives are remember due to their violent deaths!! I'm sure they would differ on that. Maybe when someone decides to butcher one of us... we'll differ to! ;-)

Should we all die at the hands of a sad bastard to amount to something in the history books?!?! I don't think those close to them then and now would agree. What does it say when we generalize woman as prostitute... but glorified the villian. There are alot reasons that woman of those times (outside of their own choice) chose to prostitue their bodies... but it doesn't make them less of a person with a story. But sick bastards like "Jack the Ripper" are not human!

Anyways... my point was simply to draw attention to the fascination of sick people like "The ripper" at the expense of innocent people. These stories would be made more interesting and scary if we understood how woman were victimized (on many different levels) in those days... now that scary!!!

...was that enough of a rant!? ;-)

On another note... the Hughes Brothers did do a great job at this story/movie. It certainly doesn't play down the violent nature of his crimes. Johnny Depp was great as always to watch. And Heather Graham is ...well. :-) The movie does show the fear the woman had to live with that monster loose.

But I still don't care who "The Ripper" is... only that he should have die the same way... or burn in hell.

Cheers