Another movie about the discounted Royal Theory?

Rating: 3/10 (1 January 2004)

I remember reading the original book by Stephen Knight and wondering if it was true, but then I read all I could about the Ripper, and after reading the files (opened in '88 - the Knight's book came out in '76) I could see that it could not be true. When this movie came out, I wanted to see it, but a friend told me the solution and I was disgusted. ANOTHER movie based on this tired theory? Aren't movies based on historical events supposed to try and work in the known facts? I finally got the movie (free) and was appalled. They worked in enough facts to prove to me they did some research, but then ignored things like what these women did prior to their deaths, who they were, what their lives were like. These women were not a clique of "unfortunates" who hung around together, though they might have known one another. I mean, they did the same thing and lived in the same area! But are we supposed to believe the police were stupid enough to miss something like a group of friends being killed off one by one? If there had been that connection, wouldn't that be the MAIN thing known about the Ripper?
It just bothers me that they are still doing Ripper movies with the same tired solution in this day and age. This looks it was done just to take advantage of the ability to show blood and gore. Why can't we start with the Ripper Files and fit the story around it? If you keep harping on the Royal solution, people will believe it that is what happened, because not everyone can read Jack the Ripper A to Z (great book!) I am sure that if you ask anyone they will swear the Royal solution is the truth, because that is all they ever see.
Johnny Depp is eye candy and they might have impressed some with the blood and gore, but I'd be far more impressed by a serious attempt to tell it like it *might* have happened. This theory has been discounted LONG ago; it's time for something else, please! I know they were going to do a Maybrick movie, then suddenly they didn't - I assumed it was because they decided the diary was a fake. Hey, fake or not, it would have made an interesting story, and something DIFFERENT. Are they afraid someone might have taken it seriously? If that's the case, then why are they still promoting this obvious fiction? I don't see how it is any different. Except this one's already been done. Do it too much, and it becomes accepted as being true.