Saw a screening of this last night and it is without a doubt one of the better movies of the year. (Which isn’t saying much, considering.) Aside from some hair-raising gruesomeness, it’s near perfect. Cinematography is first rate. Suspense is downright PAINFULL in some parts. Great performances from nearly the entire cast (yes, even Heather Graham!) Story is interesting and while somewhat implausible, is not so off-the-wall as to be completely unbelieveable. But what really tickled me was how much oddball stuff they managed to cram into it; it really did remind me of reading one of the SD books.
In no specific order (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Absinthe/Laudanum abuse
Opium dens
Jack the Ripper (duh)
The Elephant Man (no joke!)
Old time pimps (band name!)
Royal scandals
Freemasons (!!!)
Why you put coins of the eyes of the dead, etc.
And probably a bunch more stuff I’m forgetting. If there was a bit about the Illuminati and something about “sperm trees” it would’ve been 100% Straight Dope born and bred. I’m hoping this finds a following and doesn’t end up getting lumped in with the usual bunch of low-brow horror films coming out in the next few weeks. Really really worth a look.
Although I should add that I’m slightly impressed they borrowed that much from the book. I didn’t think the similarities would extend much past the title.
Gee…you mean they change things from books to movies? Gosh! :rolleyes:
Seriously though. I understand the original work is huge, and without making a 6 hour movie, something’s gotta give, eh?
Since you’re familiar with the works, could you tell me if the volume they’re selling on Amazon is the bound works or the first in the series? I’m not too keen on spending $25 on a single comic book, especially if there are 10 books total.
(BTW to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie or read the books, the review in the link inexplicably gives away the identity of Jack the Ripper, so beware if you want to be surprised.)
And as for “giving away” the identity, the book isn’t a mystery. It explores WHY this individual might be motivated to do such a thing, not who did it. It’s no big secret in the book who the killer is, since the story is more or less from his point of view.
Thanks Lego. The movie is of course more a suspense/psycological thriller, so it’s better for anyone planning to see it that they don’t know who the killer is. If you already know, well yeah, you probably won’t find it that exciting. (A great looking film by any measure, though. Can’t wait to see it again.)
Like the entire point of the book, I can see how that would get in the way of Hollywood. From the beginning you know who the killer is, in the book, and that’s why it’s such an interesting read. He comes off as incredibly intelligent, sensible, and intuitive but because he’s seeing things that no one else can see (even the psychic) he’s percieved as mad. “I gave birth to the twentieth century.”
“You won’t live to see the twentieth century.” Woo! Go Hollywood. Nothing like turning a smart literary work into an action movie (love the high speed carriage chase – needed more explosions, though).
Yeah, I’m pissed off at this movie, but I also know the inner workings of the entertainment industry so I can’t be surprised. I can, however, encourage people to read the original book.
Looks like the real deal to me. When you get it, you’ll see that it’s the size of a small phone book, and crammed to the brim with ideas.
It’s not a mystery. The killer is revealed in the first few chapters. It was never intended to be a mystery, it was meant to be a complex character study. (The appendix in the back is almost worth the price alone, if you’re into this kind of thing.)
GROAN! Scurvy, I don’t want to get into a debate about the evils of Hollywood, or the superiority of the written word over the flimed, etc etc. I worked for a theater company for 10 years and saw many, many shitty movies. When I see one I actually like I want to share it with people. There’s a big difference between books and movies and they are both popular for different reasons. The movie doesn’t negate the written works and if anything the movie will inspire people to find out about Moore and perhaps garner new fans.
Uh… then don’t, because it would be pretty one sided, as I wasn’t trying to start a debate. I stated explicitly that “I can’t be surprised [at what they turned the movie into]. I can, however, encourage people to read the original book.”
The Ripper is Dr. William Gull, the royal physician, acting on the will of the queen, with the support of a network of Freemasons. This is all established by (I think) the second comic book.
Yes, Sir William Gull. While the book is largely fictional extrapolations of real events and real people, I think Gull (with an accomplice) remains the likeliest suspect.
When I took the London Walks Jack the Ripper tour back in May, the guide evoked Gull as a suspect, but then acquitted him because of his stroke some years before the killings, and because the fancy carriage he would have ridden to Whitechapel would have been noted and mentioned to the police.
But Alan Moore cites sources that imply Gull wasn’t badly impaired by his stroke, and I figure anyone as smart as Gull would have been smart enough to arrange for more nondescript transportation into the East End.
Do read the book, all of you who are interested in the movie. It goes into much more detail; the appendix for each chapter took me longer to read than the chapter it annotates!