Great visuals, disappointing script

Rating: Null/10 (2 December 2001)

The Jack the Ripper case fascinates me. I lived in England for a total of 6 months during the past 2 years, 2 months of which was spent in London. I've been on the London Walks "Jack the Ripper Haunts" walking tour. I've also been on a walking tour of East London and the Whitechapel district, lead by Donald Rumbelow himself (author of "The Complete Jack the Ripper", which he autographed for me). I've stood on the very spot where 2 of the bodies were found (Polly Nichols in Bucks Row, and Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square). I've had a pint of beer in the Ten Bells pub -- the same pub at least one of the Ripper's victims was known to frequent, and where it's suspected he may have even visited himself while stalking his prey.
Why do I tell you all this? So that you know I have some intimate familiarity with the people, places, and events that took place. "From Hell" portrays some things very nicely -- the overall look and feel of Victorian East London is largely how I'd imagine it appeared then (although highly stylized, to be sure). Other little details were a treat to those who are familiar with this time and place: the "rope" the unfortunates who could not afford a bed had to sleep leaning against, the term "doss" money, little details about each murder such as the piece of leather apron found nearby one victim, or the proximity of the broken window to the doorknob in Mary Kelly's room. All very nice details that I found exciting to see.
But then they messed up so many other details, or fabricated them completely, or didn't explain them at all that I was left feeling betrayed. I mean, grapes? Where did they get that idea? And laudanum? And although they had the broken window in Mary Kelly's room correct, the WAY it was broken was complete nonsense (it was broken during a fight she had with her common-law husband).
What about the fact that this case changed the way police investigated murders? Fingerprinting was controversial and had yet to be proved reliable as a method of identification. This case was the turning point. But no historical mention is made of this during the movie, which would have been fascinating and enlightening for those not in the know.
And not a single suspect is every caught or questioned during this movie! In reality, many people were suspected and questioned -- too many, in fact. But this movie makes it look like the police are just following the killer around, wondering whom he is and why he's doing all this killing. Sheesh.
They didn't follow up on the leather apron bit (they just threw it in there, so people not familiar with the case would be like, "huh"?) I'd imagine people not familiar at all with this case will either like the movie because they will see it on a different level than I did, or else they'll be so confused that they won't know what's going on half the time.
My favorite "Hollywoodism": the Ripper riding in a horse-drawn carriage, wearing a cape and top hat and lugging around a box of medical instruments! Come on guys -- the Ripper was seen speaking to his victims on several occasions by several witnesses. But nobody ever got a real good look at him, and the ones who did came up with differing descriptions. That just adds to the intrigue of the case.
And if you think there were any prostitutes in 1888 East London that looked like Heather Graham, I've got news for you! These women were filthy, their clothes ragged, they were smelly, diseased, missing teeth, and wore everything they owned. Heather Graham they were not.
There are so many loose ends and things thrown in that are never followed up in this movie. Like the Elephant Man -- what the hell did he have to do with anything? Or the lynch mob briefly seen running through the streets with torches, apparently looking for Jews, who are seen closing up their shops -- I'm familiar with the case and even I didn't have a clue what that was all about! (And the movie doesn't bother to explain itself). And how about the letter that arrives with a piece of victim's kidney -- the letter sent "From Hell". We never get to see the damn letter! The movie title is BASED on that letter, it derives its identity from that letter... and we NEVER GET TO SEE IT! They don't even read it completely! They don't even say whether they believe it's authentic or not! They just get the letter and kidney, read part of it, and then it's on with the story. How utterly disappointing.
Last (and perhaps least), they didn't even get the message the Ripper wrote on the wall right! The movie says it was "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing". My "Complete Jack the Ripper" book has it as: "The Juwes are not The men that Will be Blamed for nothing". Minor point, perhaps, but why would the filmmakers not make an effort to get something like this right?
I hate to criticize a movie for not staying true to reality, when I know movies have to take certain liberties with their subject matter. But some things were just too much to swallow, like Inspector Abberline being a hallucinating opium addict (although Johnny Depp's cockney accent is very convincing), or all the lobotomy stuff (let alone the people who receive the lobotomies, and for what reasons).
"What were they thinking?" is what I'd like to know. One of those movies that isn't so bad while you're watching it, but that you dislike more and more as you think about it later. A major let-down for me. I give it *1/2 out of ****.