Yet another (average) filmization of the Jack the Ripper tale.

Rating: Null/10 (5 January 2007)

From the makers of "Menace II Society" comes a stylized tale of terror and conspiracy in 19th century London... I don't think so. It is evident from the cast and the look that a fair amount of money has been gone into this, but visually the movie isn't as good as the money put into it should have achieved. The mood isn't as somber and real as the directors were going for. The Hughes brothers? I don't think so. I smell a bit of affirmative action; perhaps not as much as with Spike Lee, but something's there. These guys are not that talented.
Once again Americans are cast to play Brits (or vice versa) and this is a mystery to me. Depp's accent is acceptable but why should the viewer even bother getting used to Depp with an atypical accent when a British actor would have been just as fine? Heather Graham is much more problematic, but because of her miscasting: there is almost nothing about her appearance that connects her in any way with either a prostitute or a ragged 19th century British woman - let alone both. Otherwise the casting and the cast is good (including Depp, once you get used to the accent). There was something bogus about the scene with the Elephant Man; it seemed fake and out-of-place. Besides, why should a Jack the Ripper tale include the Elephant Man in any way at all? It would be like making a drama about a Spanish family and the father is a matador, while the mother is a flamenco dancer. Why the clichés? An absurd character is the pathologist who is so grossed out at looking at Ripper's victims that he even vomits in one scene - as does his assistant! What pathologist would vomit upon seeing a butchered body?! They're used to all sorts of s***! And if the pathologist vomits then Coltrane and Depp should be puking for hours.
Just the idea of doing Jack the Ripper is problematic: too much is known about the case (even though it hasn't been solved), therefore the element of surprise is gone in many ways. I don't really have a problem with the plot that was devised: basically the writers came up with a huge conspiracy theory, a major cover-up of the Ripper's evil doings; everyone is in on it: the masons, the top policemen, the medical community - and even Queen Victoria herself! (Basically, the entire British elite.) Still, the inclusion of masons is rare in films so that was okay. It was predictable that Holm was the Ripper: I recognized his voice during the first (or second) murder, way before his identity is revealed. I thought it was far-fetched that Depp didn't go to visit Graham and the child, even after years had passed; surely he wouldn't have to be worried that he'd be followed non-stop for years by the masons. Because the details of the Ripper tale are so familiar the first half of the movie is weaker than the second half, in which more of the newer ideas and unknown things occur. All in all solid, but elements of predictability and the lack of real style make it less interesting.
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/johnny_depp__a_biography