From Hell (2001)
|
Inspector Abberline is being placed on a brand new case with a high profile. Someone is going through the streets of London, Whitechapel district, and killing prostitutes in very horrific manners. Abberline eventually falls for one of the soon-to-be victims and will use Mary Kelly’s strength in battling this killer and all the forces trying to sweep the crimes under the rug.
Overall - Film vs. Reality: The film really distances itself from the facts and I think the additions don’t make the story better. In real life, Mary Kelly dies, the prostitutes don’t know each other and the Masons aren’t involved. I think the biggest problem is that the conspiracy, which the film revolves around, turns this film into a sequel of “The Skulls.” I think the best trait to look at to identify the killer is not only medical training but opportunity to stop. I really think the key is why the killer stopped...someone who commits crimes like this won’t exactly stop “just because.” This is one of those times where a person stops because they are forced to. That can be by dying, moving to another place, incarceration, or motive is fulfilled. I can understand the idea the move takes by showing the killer as killing to cover-up and when everyone is silenced, you can stop. But in real life the cover-up of not wanting to catch a high profile member of society makes sense given the time period, but the covering up because of who the victims were, does not. I think there was a cover-up of sorts due to the horrific nature of the crimes, see “Chikatilo.” However, the cover-up didn’t stop the killer. That is why Francis Tumblety is the best suspect for the timeline and George Chapman is the best for motive. Anyone else has too many holes to be a real decent suspect. Mystery writer Patricia Cornwall thinks Walter Sickert did it, History Channel likes David Cohen, and the Discovery Channel's experts choose Kominsky. Kominsky was too inactive after the 5th death to be the real killer. Cornwall has some good ideas but paintings aren't evidence. Actors, painters and musical artists share a few things in common: giant ego & belief they are infamous. Sickert was too obsessed with himself to think someone could be more popular than himself. Also the more evidence which which he wrote some letters, the more i think he was hoaxing the police. A conspiracy can't last 100+ years. Someone always gives themselves away. And the History Channel supports this suggesting all the letters were written not by the real Ripper but by either the media or a copycat. If the letters were written by Sickert then he still didn't do it. But we are no closer than Scotland yard is to finding the killer...give us another 100 years. Overall - Film: The film should have included the deleted scenes involving the letters. They are very important and the film barely touches on it but the deleted scenes show some plot veins of how the city was reacting and what the killer was thinking. The film as it was left also was so vague about the racism that might have existed and what the Queen knew and when did she know it, that you could have written that out entirely and still not suffered much. Also McQueen’s gang has no closure to their situation in the film and they never do go after Mary and the girls when they don’t pay, after the warning...nor is Nedley sufficiently given closure, as filmed. Comparison: Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde meets Sleepy Hollow |
Links to other sites at The Sinning Room
Horror Films A-K Review Page
Horror Films Review Page
