SPOILERS
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — From Hell
al666940 — 11 years ago(July 27, 2014 10:11 AM)
SPOILERS
You know, that sir William Gull was the killer.
I don't mind the conspiracy plot, nor the reasons, but the bit of the Queen having her 70 year old physician play hitman.
I mean, come on, a 70 year old man?!!!
Like the Queen couldn't have her men of trust hire a professional hitman (soldier, cop, investigator, you name it) who BTW were also physically fit for the job!!!
May as well have the Queen herself commit the crimes, heh?
And to top it all off, since Gull is enforcing the Queen's wishes, why on Earth is he punished for it? Because he went overboard? Well hello, that's what you get for asking murder and mayhem from someone who is not in such line of work!!! Anyone would go insane in the process unless he's not already harnessed by such trade (ask any white collar dude to fill in for a slaughterhouse worker ONE DAY and let me know how that goes). -
There_Is_No_Sayid — 11 years ago(October 09, 2014 08:22 AM)
Also, PAV's marriage was never legal as he didn't receive permission from the monarch and heirs to the British throne are forbidden from marrying Catholics.
The idea came from a British reporter Stephen Knight, who got it from a man named Joseph Gorman, who claimed to be the illegitimate son of the painter Walter Sickert. But Gorman later recanted his story and it turned out that Knight had a brain tumor and may have not been operating with all of his faculties.
Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything. -
BedHeadTalks — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 07:55 AM)
It is entertaining but the plot is definitely absurd and so cliche! The previous poster has already identified some of the issues with the story. At the end of this movie I ended up laughing. The love story between Abberline and the prostitute was really over the top! Overall, the film started well but ended up being incredibly cheesy!
Alas, I am beyond impropriety -Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham (Downton Abbey) -
Bergman_Fellini87 — 10 years ago(June 28, 2015 07:55 PM)
This ridiculous theory was already discredited long before this film was even made as well. The screenwriters & directors were just too lazy to do any research.
On the DVD features, there is a video of the directors walking around the sets. Their ignorance on the subject is shocking.
They are talking about Polly Nichols's nickname, & not knowing what it is. Her name was Mary Ann Nichols, & Polly WAS her nickname.
They didn't know what street Elizabeth Stride was killed on (Berner Street).
They were at the Miller's Court set talking about how Mary Kelly's landlord lived above her & did not do anything when he heard the cries of "oh murder" in the early hours of the 9th of November.
Um, no. Not only did he not live above her, but any neighbours that did hear the cry didn't do anything because it was such a common occurrence in the area. There wasn't any sinister intentions behind the ignoring like the directors implied.
Then, in another documentary on the DVD (on suspects), one of the directors mentions Joseph Merrick (The Elephant Man), & basically said he should be suspected since he wore a black coat & hat. What a load of crap. ANYONE with a brain can see Merrick was physically incapable of committing these vile murders. People who say he was the Ripper are just saying so purely out of his appearance. They're just wanting to make a name for themselves by dragging his name through the mud. It is despicable.
The Hughes Brothers clearly knew nothing of the subject, but they acted like experts. I'd be okay with the conspiracy angle if they had made the film & dealt with the subject in a thought provoking manner. Look at JFK. It is a brilliantly made film & very fascinating. Same with Zodiac. -
BlimeyCharlie — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 02:54 AM)
"The Hughes Brothers clearly knew nothing of the subject, but they acted like experts. I'd be okay with the conspiracy angle if they had made the film & dealt with the subject in a thought provoking manner."
I've got to tell you, Albert, this is the very same way I feel about David Fincher, in terms of how he directed "Zodiac" back in 2007. It might very well be a "brilliantly made and fascinating" film aesthetically, but it's a total crock in terms of the real-life facts of that particular case, much like "From Hell" is. It was based on the books about the case by Robert Graysmith, who is a proven liar and charlatan who just wanted to make money off of a criminal case by claiming that he had "solved" it. At least Alan Moore didn't do that when he wrote the graphic novel upon which "From Hell" is based - it might well have been about a real life criminal case, but he stated outright that he wasn't trying to actually "solve" it, and that's a key difference.