Continuity mistake: The first time we see the young doctor doing his "lobotomy" in London Hospital (to the girl that was married to Prince Edward), Ian Holm comments on the procedure for some guest as they stand behind a glass window. You can clearly see the young doctor doing the third strike with his hammer in a reflection in the window. The movie cuts back to the young doctor and he is doing the third strike for a second time.
From Hell (2001)
Directed by: Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes
Starring: Johnny Depp, Ian Holm, Heather Graham, Robbie Coltrane
Continuity mistake: When Abberline draws the knife on the board its lines are jagged. When it cuts to different angles of the board the knife is completely different, smooth lines and it seems much larger and it is perfectly aligned on the board.
Factual error: Towards the end of the movie, Mary sends a hand-written note to Inspector Abberline. The 'r' in her name is written in a North American style, where she is European.
Trivia: The same man that stops McQueen from popping out the eye of the first prostitute stops Abberline while he's kissing Mary Kelley (you can tell by the numbers on his uniform).
Jack the Ripper: I shall tell you where we are. We're in the darkest region of the human brain, a radiant abyss where men go to find themselves.
Netley: I don't understand, sir.
Jack the Ripper: Hell, Netley. We are in hell.
Sir William Gull: No man amongst you is fit to judge the mighty art that I have wrought. Your rituals are empty oaths you neither understand, nor live by. The Great Architect speaks to me. He is the balance where my deeds are weighed and judged, not you.
Sir William Gull: One day men will look back and say that I gave birth to the Twentieth century.
Question: In the middle of the movie, one of the doctors tells the others of John Merrick, aka The Elephant Man. They show him for a few seconds Disrobed.. What is the point of showing Merrick in the movie? This scene seems totally isolated from the rest of the plot. It almost feels like they had an extra minute to kill and decided to add it in.
Question: Was Ian Holm using contact lenses, or did they do something with his eyes in post production? From the scene where Abberline asks about the Free Masons and onwards his eyes are considerably darker (a deliberate effect I take it).
Answer: His eyes are not just darker, his entire eyes are completely black. This was done by CGI effects to show that the murderous Ripper side to Gull's persona is taking over and is in control.
Question: Why is it a "known fact" that Mary Kelley was killed by Jack the Ripper? Her murder differs in many ways from the others. She was killed indoors, she wasn't wearing any clothes, her body was so savaged that she was unrecognisable. The other murders took place outdoors with victims fully dressed and only partly savaged. Considering the number of violent deaths that took place in London at this time (most of them by slashing the throat) she could have been murdered by anybody. I know Abberline was called to the scene of the crime but that doesn't prove the Ripper actually did it and Abberline was called to more murder scenes than just the five official Ripper ones. What makes people so sure that Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelley?
Answer: As the Ripper was never caught and interrogated, it can never be said with absolute certainty that Kelly was one of his victims. Her death does, however, fit the pattern of Ripper murders quite well with regard to time, general location, methodology and class of victim. There was also a noted trend of increasing levels of mutilation as the murders went on, so, while the damage was considerably more extensive that the previous killings, that also fits with a noted trend of the Ripper murder - it's also worth considering that, as Kelly was apparently his final kill, he may well have wanted to sign off with a particularly grand statement, hence the extreme level of mutilation to the body. This would also explain why the attack uncharacteristically took place indoors - what Jack had in mind for Kelly would take a considerable period of undisturbed time, more than could be guaranteed in an on-street attack. It's also believed that Jack had been interrupted during the murder of Elizabeth Stride on his previous night of violence some weeks earlier - this could also have led him to alter his modus operandi to ensure that this would not be repeated. So, no, it cannot be stated categorically that Kelly was a victim of Jack the Ripper, however the evidence suggests a high probability that this was the case, enough so that many people consider this to be a fact.
It wasn't Mary Jane Kelly.
The question pertained to the real-life Ripper murders, not what we see in this film. It was indeed Mary Kelly in real life.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: In the original book, Merrick's appearance is used to show William Gull's education, expertise as an anatomist and that he recognises and respects cultural diversity - Gull assures Merrick that, had he been born in India, he would be worshipped as a descendant of the elephant-headed god, Ganesa. In this spirit, Gull even offers the victim of his first Ripper slaying to Ganesa as a sacrifice, as Indians make a sacrifice to Ganesa at the beginning of an important enterprise. Merrick is present as a vehicle to establish the rich nature of Gull's character. When it comes to the film, however, this subtlety is completely lost - it seems very much that the scriptwriter noted Merrick's appearance in the book and felt that it would be cool to include the character in his script. As such, as you point out, it does feel that Merrick's presence, stripped of the subtleties of the book, is almost entirely pointless.
Tailkinker ★