Saucy Jack (spoilers)

Rating: Null/10 (3 October 2005)

Studio films can't half be frustrating at times. On the one hand you get all the gloss but on the other you have to put up with 'stars' being shoehorned into the picture to satisfy the bean counters. Now most of the time the later isn't too much of a problem. I mean, sure it can be a little frustrating to have the same few people pop up in blockbuster after blockbuster, but despite what some snobs may say, a reasonable proportion of stars are stars for a reason  whether it be raw acting talent or mere charisma. But while Johnny Depp is a fine actor as well as a bankable star, he just isn't very good in From Hell.
I don't know what went wrong, but Depp just doesn't seem all that comfortable in his role. Maybe he had to concentrate too much on the accent  if he did, then he still did a pretty bad job on that front  but even if he didn't, he still seems uncertain of himself. It's as if he doesn't know whether to play the role tongue in cheek or dead serious, and instead falls into some unsatisfactory middle ground.
Not helping him too much is the fact that he didn't sell the whole tortured detective thing to me. Abberline is supposed to be a man with a past  like nearly 99% of detectives in films  but there was no real weight to the character. Yeah he may smoke opium and he may drink Absinthe, but it felt like style rather than substance. And while that may be the fault of the script or the direction, Depp still felt lightweight in this film. (Lightweight reminds me; I think the heavyweight Robbie Coltrane would have been excellent as Abberline. Or, alternatively, Robert Carlyle.)
Then there's Heather Graham. Now Johnny Depp is fully deserving of his status as a star. Heather Graham, though, isn't. Therefore it's rather excruciating listening to her trying to deliver dialogue in a badly contrived accent and rather painful watching her try and play the hooker with a heart of gold. Such a stock character needs someone with a lot of acting talent to make it believable and interesting (maybe Samantha Morton or Emily Watson?). As it is, her character is incredibly dull to watch (and, annoyingly, the film denies us the pleasure of her brutal murder). Plus she looks silly alongside the other prostitutes. You go from believably haggard streetwalker to believably haggard streetwalker to Heather Graham, who's supposed to look the part because she doesn't quite have as much eye make-up as she usually does and because her hair isn't quite combed through. She's not at all convincing, and it's frustrating that the Hughes brothers had to cast her as a concession to the studio.
But despite the two main stars being miscast, there's a lot of good stuff in the film. I especially like some of the comments on Victorian society. You've got the brutality of the medicine of the time (the woman being lobotomised and then swept under the carpet in the workhouse), sexual hypocrisy (a blind eye is turned to men using prostitutes but the prostitutes themselves are despised), class (the upper class police chief refers to a middle class doctor as having 'a cheap sort of intelligence') and prejudice. And it's the prejudice that produces one of the best scenes. There's a scene where the police chief is talking to Abberline about who they're looking for. Here are some of the chief's quotes: "One thing's for sure, an Englishman didn't do it." "An educated man? That's preposterous. No well-bred man would do this." "What about the Jews?" At the time, when I was watching the scene, I got a kick out of it because it seemed like a Victorian twist on the 'stupid chief' scenes that you always see in 80s cop films. But after you see the ending, you realise that the stupid chief wasn't quite so stupid. Yet even though, or maybe because, the chief was part of the Masonic conspiracy (damn those Masons!), the scene works even better in retrospect. Not only does it expose the prejudice of the upper classes, but it exposes the hypocrisy too  a man who kills for an apparently noble cause can be looked down upon and disposed of, but a man who takes part by covering it up is honourably doing his duty.
Stylistically, too, the film is excellent. There are loads of wonderful shots. My favourite is the one where you go from high up, down to street level and then underground to the Masons who are secretly running the show. I also like the blood red skies and the shots of Parliament. And the 'visions' are excellent as well. Oh, and I love the time-lapse shot after Jack kills one of his victims  and before that I like the way that The Ripper just vanishes from the scene like a phantom.
And it's Ian Holm who delivers the best performance (although the whole supporting cast does a fine job). He's entirely charming as the kindly doctor and completely bonkers as Jack the Ripper  the heart scene is great, especially the fantasy element where his fellow doctors are applauding his work. And although Holm doesn't really seem physically big enough to play Jack, it doesn't become an issue because Holm is so great in the role. But I do have to say that the mystery element of the story was misjudged. The 'disguised' Ripper voice is obviously a hushed Holm. But it really doesn't matter. The mystery is revealed with quite a bit of time to go (I dig the creepy black eyes) and the fun is in the bloody carnage  the murders are suitably nasty.
But one thing remains: the film would have been a lot better if Jack would have been allowed to dice Heather Graham.