Jack the Ripper continues to allude people, even to this day. First and foremost, the suspect list is very extensive. However, this version from the film, From Hell, goes with the popular theory of a Royal/Freemason conspiracy.
From Hell, is a film that captures late 1880s London very successfully. The technical and production skills that provide the haunting slum appearance of East London is superb.
As for the film, many liberties were indeed taken. Johnny Depp was magnificent as Frederick Aberline...but Aberline cannot be said to be a drug-addict and the ending is fanciful. I understand artistic license, but when a film embarks upon a non-fictional event, the truth or facts, should still be used as the fixture and fitting of a film's direction.
I enjoyed the film, and the actors and actresses were extremely good. The story and caveats were interesting, but its the omissions of the case that confused me. For example, Jack the Ripper was identified, not facially, but his clothes were identified. I believe it was a deer stalkers hat and tweed clothing and a small suitcase, which was obviously used for his surgical apparatus. The mystery of the Ripper rests on how the hell, no-one noticed anything and the lack of witnesses. London during the late 1880s was a very over-crowded place, especially the East End, with arrivals from Eastern Jews escaping the pogroms and also Chinese immigrants.
The film could've projected the social and political pressures more, as it was these issues, that made the Police work even more daunting, as it was an area that was afflicted with radicalism and communities in perpetual transit. This would mean, many false leads and greater pressure as a result.
However as a film, the atmosphere, the production and acting, all combine to make a great film....but not a factual film!
From Hell, is a film that captures late 1880s London very successfully. The technical and production skills that provide the haunting slum appearance of East London is superb.
As for the film, many liberties were indeed taken. Johnny Depp was magnificent as Frederick Aberline...but Aberline cannot be said to be a drug-addict and the ending is fanciful. I understand artistic license, but when a film embarks upon a non-fictional event, the truth or facts, should still be used as the fixture and fitting of a film's direction.
I enjoyed the film, and the actors and actresses were extremely good. The story and caveats were interesting, but its the omissions of the case that confused me. For example, Jack the Ripper was identified, not facially, but his clothes were identified. I believe it was a deer stalkers hat and tweed clothing and a small suitcase, which was obviously used for his surgical apparatus. The mystery of the Ripper rests on how the hell, no-one noticed anything and the lack of witnesses. London during the late 1880s was a very over-crowded place, especially the East End, with arrivals from Eastern Jews escaping the pogroms and also Chinese immigrants.
The film could've projected the social and political pressures more, as it was these issues, that made the Police work even more daunting, as it was an area that was afflicted with radicalism and communities in perpetual transit. This would mean, many false leads and greater pressure as a result.
However as a film, the atmosphere, the production and acting, all combine to make a great film....but not a factual film!