Agree with Josefin on this one....

Rating: Null/10 (14 September 2002)

As a former reviewer as already stated this film was sooo off the mark, it was laughable.
I to, have done many researches into Jack the Ripper. If you have read my review of the Michael Caine drama Jack the Ripper(1988), this is not a whole lot different.
Why are Hollywood so obsessed with bending the truth? If you going to make a good Jack the Ripper film, based on ACTUAL events, for a start off, STOP using good looking actresses to play the roles of the Prostitutes. In reality, the Prostitutes were toothless, unbelivably ugly, and fat.

At least get the murders in the right order!
Not even the police were as handsome as Johnny Depp. Abberline was a short stout man, balding, with a beard.
On the whole, the film would probably pass a few hours away, if you had nothing to do. I wont be seeing it again for sure.
I have yet to come across a Jack the Ripper Film/TV Series that is true to the actual events of 1888. Michael Caine's 1988 version is probably the one I would recommend.
In this one, Lysette Anthony played Mary Jane Kelly (played in this one by Heather Graham).
If you have ever seen a painting of Mary Kelly, Lysette bears a remarkable resembelance to her. Graham looks NOTHING like her.
Forget this one, and see the Michael Caine TV Film. Although, still not acurate, it is the only one closest to the truth.
JRB.