ARTSETC.
“From Hell” not as hellish as you’d think
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Alexander Conant:
Related Stories:
- Horror of history lost in retelling (October 23, 2001)
- Album leaves listeners in purgatory (February 14, 2006)
- Why UW-Madison has the potential to ruin movies (January 22, 2002)
- Delicacies call for redefining tastes (November 18, 2005)
- The Darkness men go to hell (December 8, 2005)
by Alexander Conant
Sunday, October 21, 2001
Arts Editor’s Disclaimer: It is rare that our EIC spends a Saturday night at the movies. So when he does it’s newsworthy, or at least in the Arts section. Here is our fearless leader’s take on the new “From Hell.”
“From Hell” is not a date movie.
Set in turn-of-the-century London, “From Hell” tracks Jack the Ripper as he viciously murders and guts five prostitutes. The movie reel drips with blood, soaking everything in an omnipresent red glow.
But “From Hell” is not a horror movie, either.
For a homicidal maniac, Jack is hard to hate. First off, he does the audience a favor by cutting the most annoying (and bad-looking) characters first. Jack proves he’s more man than monster by leaving the most attractive victim, Heather Graham, for his last kill. Instead, he rids London (and the movie) of the more unpopular prostitutes first. (Reviewer’s note: London gentlemen apparently disagree — Graham receives no business during the movie.)
“From Hell” is too bloody to enjoy, yet too tame to fear. Instead, it’s stuck in the squishy middle, desperately trying to make its characters and plot relevant in 2001. On this front, the movie fails, too. The movie’s social irony — that poor and immoral 1888 London is more innocent than rich 2001 America — is not convincing.
Today’s bad guys are far more scary and interesting than “Hell’s.”
