Review: From Hell

Set in 1888 London, England, Johnny Depp stars as Fred Abberline, the opium-addicted Scotland Yard detective working on the famed series of murders of Whitechapel prostitutes by the fiend known only as Jack the Ripper. Heather Graham plays prostitute Mary Kelly, whom Abberline develops a fondness for, whist Robbie Coltrane is his partner on the job. Ian Richardson is the snooty, somewhat antagonistic police commissioner worried about scandal, and Ian Holm plays a well-connected doctor who assists Abberline in the investigation.

One day, someone is going to make the definitive Jack the Ripper film. This 2001 Hughes Brothers (yeah, the “Menace II Society” guys making a film about an entirely different ‘ghetto’) flick isn’t it, though, I’m afraid. Personally, I think Hitchcock came closest when he made the silent film “The Lodger”, an unofficial Ripper story that didn’t get bogged down in heavy plotting and uninteresting periphery characters (Me? I’d do a silent, German Expressionist-style version). This film boasts pretty terrific production values, a lot of visual style, solid (if unremarkable) performances, but the characters and story are severely lacking. It’s pretty but empty.

Firstly, the story is not only far too cluttered with unnecessary tangents (Was it really necessary to include a scene with the real-life “Elephant Man” here?), but the specific Ripper theory chosen is awfully problematic. Of all the theories out there to choose from, this graphic novel-derived film chooses the dumbest and least interesting of those available (actually combining two Ripper theories). It’s a theory that even non-Ripper enthusiasts will likely have heard of, and in addition to being stupid and uninteresting, it’s entirely transparent (and it’s not like they had no other option, the story offers several possibilities in the film). The story itself might be needlessly cluttered and murky in plot, but the resolution is blatantly obvious from the actor’s first appearance. And even if you don’t latch on to it early, the big reveal scene is so ineptly handled that the actor in question gives the game away from the very beginning of the scene, due to their poor acting (in an otherwise fine performance overall). Yet as transparent as it is, there’s so many characters here that I’m still not sure how some of them figured into the mystery even after my second viewing of the film. In fact, there are some characters whom I’m not even sure existed in any real world sense of the term, and if they were just figments of someone’s imagination, I’m somewhat baffled as to whose imagination we are talking about. The film also has two endings too many, an affliction many films in recent years have suffered from.

The characters played by Depp and Graham are no help. Not only are Depp’s opium-assisted visions an irrelevant stylistic device that is unseemly and time-wasting and far too reminiscent of Sherlock Holmes and his Seven Percent Solution (Holmes’ drug dependency has always been off-putting to me). Why not just change the character from the real-life Abberline to the fictional Holmes? The Holmes vs. The Ripper idea has always appealed to me more than the story we get here (Semi-relevant side note: My favourite Ripper theory? Jack was a petty crim arrested and shafted off to a penal colony where he presumably died of disease or consumption, and whilst probably not a doctor, had some working knowledge in that area). Anyway, this will not rank as one of Depp’s best performances, he’s serviceable but a bit drab, not being afforded the chance to cut loose nor give much of a serious, dramatic performance, either. Meanwhile, a flame-haired Graham is pretty dull as the purdiest and least disease-ridden hooker in town. I hate to say it, but Helena Bonham-Carter ought to have had Graham’s role. Susan Lynch shows a little personality (and kisses a few women) as one of the other hookers, but they’re all a pretty unlikeable, filthy lot. This is probably true to life (pretty-eyed, ‘fire crotch’ Graham excepted), but that doesn’t make them interesting, and sadly they eat up a lot of screen time. The supporting cast is quite good, especially Coltrane, Holm, Jason Flemyng, Richardson, and Terrence Harvey, but none are really developed as characters, aside from maybe Holm. And ultimately, a story is only as good as the characters who inhabit it, and who drive the plot. Thus, it becomes a bit hard to care about anything when the story is cluttered, silly, and muddled, and featuring characters one cannot engage with. Two of the characters are offered up as red herrings, but in a manner that is cheating, and at the very least baffling (That’s an awful lot of people riding in the carriage!).

This is, ultimately, style over substance, but the style is pretty damn commendable, aside from some annoying MTV editing. The first murder, whilst not graphic, is pretty cool. There’s an excellent visual of a prostitute in the foreground and a shadow of top-hat adorning Jack the Ripper in the background, backlit by a red light. Even better is the image of Big Ben backlit by a blood-red sky. Top-notch cinematography by Peter Deming (“Evil Dead 2”, “Scream 2”, “Mulholland Drive”), uses filters but thankfully explores more than one colour on the spectrum. But where was the fog? There wasn’t nearly enough for my liking, but with the cobblestone streets, street lamps, and horse-drawn carriages, it’s hard to complain about the visuals. I could live in this place...well, if not for the disease and the guy going around murdering.

Overall, if they had removed Depp’s drug dependency and chosen a different Ripper theory, this average film might’ve been a winner. As is, it tends to lack energy whenever Jack the Ripper or the Harvey/Flemyng characters aren’t around. Screenplay by Aussie Terry Hayes (“Mad Max 2”, “Dead Calm”) and Rafael Yglesias.

Rating: C+