From Hell

From Hell (2001)

14 corrected entries

(7 votes)

Corrected entry: In the scene where the flaming barrel is rolling towards the people, right before the barrel explodes you can see it has stopped from an extremely fast speed so it could explode. To see this, you'll probably need to play the movie in slow-motion, as it only lasts for a couple of frames.

Correction: The requirement to use slow motion and freeze frame invalidates this entry, as per the rules of this site.

Corrected entry: Sir William Gull tells Mr. Abberline he had a stroke recently - since his right arm is lame. A few seconds later he uses his right arm to put down his glasses. Sir William Gull had the first of a series of crippling strokes in 1888, and by the time of the Ripper murders was severely disabled. This is one of many, many reasons that the theory (first propounded by author Stephen Wright) that he was the Ripper, killing prostitutes to cover up an illegal Royal 'marriage', has been totally discredited. Also makes this a definite mistake.

Correction: Sir William in the movie never says directly that his stroke has rendered his arm useless, only that he had a stroke. And it is also possible that he is exaggerating his disability to Abberline to throw suspicion away from himself. It is true that in real life, Gull was disabled, but since this is a film adaptation of a graphic novel, the movie does not need to follow the actual facts of the Ripper case or any of the people connected with it. Since the comic shows sir William with the full use of both his hands, it is not an error from the filmmakers to show the same.


Corrected entry: At the end of the film when Abberline dies from an opium overdose, Godley puts two coins on his eyes. In the next shot, the coins are gone, and are back again in the final shot.

Correction: The coins are there the whole time. In the second shot it is difficult to see because of the distance and camera angle, but you can make out a coin on Abberline's right eye.


Corrected entry: At the end of the Masonic ritual with Abberline, the Masons all applaud. You can see over his shoulder they are all wearing gloves, but the sound is of bare hands clapping.

Correction: At no point in this movie does Abberline take part in a Masonic ritual. The only rituals seen where there is applauding is the initiation of dr. Ferral, and the hallucination Gull has while he is dismembering the last body. In none of these scenes do you see all the Masons present, only a few of them are seen behind Ferral or Gull. There could be several others present who were not wearing gloves at Ferral's initiation, and in Gull's case everything, including the sound, takes place in his demented mind.


Corrected entry: In the movie Inspector Abberline is young looking, handsome, has psychic visions while using opium, and dies from an OD. The real Inspector Abberline was over 40, fat, balding, didn't use opium, and died peacefully of old age in 1929.

Correction: While this may be a fact that Detective Abberline was a completely different person, in many ways, in reality, this doesn't make the casting choice for him a movie-making mistake. If you think about it, the film contains quite a few inaccuracies to the real facts of the case. This is partly for dramatization, and partly because Jack the Ripper was never caught. Therefore this couldn't really be classed as a mistake.

Corrected entry: In the film, Martha Tabram is depicted as having her throat cut and 'livelihood' removed. In fact she was stabbed multiple times, with no throat cutting or mutilations.

Correction: The movie-makers had to insert a motive to the killings seeing as there wasn't one in real life. In this movie it was ritual killings so they had to make up parts of the story i.e. what happened to the victims.

Corrected entry: This movie is filled with historical errors but I especially think the one at the end is the most striking: it ends making it seem like Gull went down in history as the definitive Whitechapel murderer. This couldn't be any further from the truth as we all know Jack the Ripper's identity was never known and almost none of the historians believe it had anything to do with Gull or the Royal Family.

Jeanne Perrotta

Correction: Actually several historians do believe that the killer was the Royal Family and that they orchestrated the whole thing. And since no one knows who the real killer was, can't the movie say it is whomever they wish?

shortdanzr Premium member

Corrected entry: Without giving too much away, at the end there's a body which has two coins placed over the eyes. It cuts away and the next shot you see someone kneeling beside the body, but the coins have disappeared. When it cuts back to the eyes, the coins are back but not as shiny as the first coins.

Correction: Actually, if you freeze that shot and zoom in on the face, you can see that there is a coin on the right eye.

Corrected entry: Jack the Ripper was a name a London newspaper made up as a headline in 1888 (during the killings). The real killer is believed to have sent a package to the police at the time containing half a kidney belonging to one of his victims and a note starting with 'From Hell'.

Correction: The Name Jack the Ripper was not made up by the press, but came from a letter to the editor of a Central news agency on September 27th, 1888 purporting to be from the Murderer and was signed Jack the Ripper. The letter was addressed to "Dear Boss" and wasn't published until three days later after the murders of Liz Stride and Katie Eddowes, as it was thought to be a hoax initially. The "From Hell" letter referred to was later on October 16th, and indeed contain a kidney in a small box. This letter was signed "Catch me when you can Mishter (sic) Lusk" Mr Lusk being the president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, set up to try and apprehend the villain.

Corrected entry: During the funeral scene, Mary is wearing a black lace shawl over her hair. In that time period, lace was hand-made and therefore extremely expensive, and was considered an object of the upper class. So why does a Newgate prostitute have a black lace shawl?

Correction: Before falling on hard times, Mary Kelly worked in service and was given many clothes by her former employer. It was well noted in history that Mary Kelly was dressed in finer clothes than the other victims, although probably just as dirty.

Corrected entry: During the scenes after Inspector Abberline gives Mary a few pieces of gold for room and board for the night; The scenes 'zooming in' across the table and drawing up to the 'Underpriviledged', you can see at the start of the scene what appears to be a modern razor. During that time period they did not have razor blades in that fashion, all razor blades were straight.

Correction: Actually, the first safety razor was invented and marketed by the Kampfe Brothers in the 1880s (contrary to popular belief, Gillette just invented the disposable blade). See:

J I Cohen

Corrected entry: Lobotomy operations were first performed on humans in the 1890s. They were not performed during the time of the Ripper murders.


Correction: The first lobotomy - in the modern sense - was performed in Switzerland by Dr Gottleb Burckhardt in 1882, and Sir William Gull was well aware of the procedure and its effects.

Correction: Still, as we know nothing about Mary Kelly's past, she very well might be the one prostitute who can.


Literacy was widespread in 1880's England. Prostitutes were ordinary women who fell on hard times. There's no reason why she wouldn't be able to read.

Corrected entry: Throughout the whole film, Mary (the redhead) always looks much cleaner and better groomed than all of her friends, who all look dirty, unkempt, and haggard. She also has a nicer dress. Where does she bathe, brush her hair, and clean her dress on a regular basis? She should share that information with her friends...

Correction: At least, in real life also, Mary Kelly was the only one of the sorry lot who had her own one room apartment, in which she "worked" and was eventually killed. Not to mention that she was by far the youngest and the prettiest, so she might have gotten by a bit better than the others.


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.

More mistakes in From Hell

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.

More quotes from From Hell

Trivia: When the Ripper is talking to his driver in the apartment, it's actually Ian Holm's voice, he just talking really low.

More trivia for From Hell

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.

Tailkinker Premium member

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.

Phaneron Premium member

More questions & answers from From Hell

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.