How plausible is this supposed to be? *(weak spoiler)*

Rating: Null/10 (11 November 2001)

Well overall, I have no ambitions to own this film but enjoyed it nonetheless. I'd like to see it again, and I would go out of my way to do it. In my book, that's three-and-a-half stars, or 8 out of 10.
That said, most of this film is a painstakingly true-to-life - I don't know what the right noun is. "Documentary" isn't it. It falls just short of that. The more I research JTR, the more impressed I am with the authenticity of the movie. I wish I took the time to read-up about the subject before I saw this.
This movie is for people who are familiar with JTR 101. Check out casebook.org, read up on it until you've memorized the victims' names, where they were killed, dates the bodies were found, and God help you, the method & extent of the mutilation. Also do your homework on local geography. These are "canonical" victims, of which there are only five.
Then, you'll be able to enjoy this movie much better. But once that's done, on having the ending revealed you will be burdened with a conspiracy theory that is barely even ponderable, let alone plausible.
In my opinion, that is the one glaring flaw of "From Hell." What was the point here? The sets are authentic down to, I'd believe, the square foot; and then the surprise ending can be easily debunked in a variety of ways. It's obviously not supposed to be believed by anyone who knows anything about the case.
So by the time you educate yourself enough to enjoy this to the fullest potential, you're already taking the subject more seriously than they want you to. Other than that, this was very well done. The movies I've really liked, in the last ten years or so, I can count on one hand. This is one of them.