|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||20 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
If you are wary of seeing the same movie redone again, and again, don't
let that stop you from watching this version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.
No, it is not perfect, and yes it does drag a bit, but there is enough here to recommend it to any horror fan.
There is an interesting enough plot twist that explains Mr. Hyde's existence that gives a new angle to this old story. Dougray Scott is very good in the lead role, and the attorney representing Dr. Jekkyl (Krista Bridges) is very easy to look at and does a fine job in her role, as well.
The transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are actually well done, inasmuch as they are not overdone.
There is one major Hollywood moment - yes, the scientist discovers the antidote just as he is being arrested and is unable to administer it to himself. Oh, if he only had one more second! The trial is difficult to believe, but contrivances are something I have learned to live with as a horror fan.
There is a very nice twist at the end, though not completely surprising.
Although Tom Skerrit is heavily publicized in the ads for the movie, his role is actually rather small and unnecessary.
Over all, well worth a watch.
In Boston, a mysterious serial-killer is attacking and murdering women.
The distinguished Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott) asks his friend Gabe
Utterson (Tom Skerritt) to indicate an attorney for him and he
schedules a visit to Claire Wheaton (Krista Bridges). He confesses that
he was the subject of his research with psychotropic trying to isolate
the evil side of the human beings and he is responsible for the
murders. When Dr. Jekyll goes to court for the trial, Claire wants to
prove that the killer is the unknown Mr. Edward Hyde.
This umpteenth version of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" is a forgettable update of the classic story. Set in Boston in the present days, instead of London in the end of the Nineteenth Century, the plot is confused and the conclusion is predictable in spite of the good acting of Dougray Scott. My vote is five.
Title (Brazil): "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde O Médico e o Monstro" ("Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde The Doctor and the Monster")
First and most important, the film is solid and entertaining and Scott
gives the performance of his life.
Most interesting to this reviewer was how ambitious this production was. In the first decade of the millennium, the Canuck industry was still trying to find itself. Soul searching.
Ultimately the industry would decide it was easier and more profitable to aim for niche product other producers had avoided.
Which is why (and I have said this before) 90% of the X-Mas movies that appear in late fall are Canadian, and without shame or apology.
(There is even a 100% Canuck version of Miracle on 34th Street, but that is another review entirely).
Canada is also where franchises go to die, which is why you might see might see version 4 or 5 of a film series you did not know HAD a 4 or 5..? Canada to the rescue.
So in 2008 we had a rare in stance of Canada perhaps getting too ambitious for its own good, and this is the result. For Canadians, it is almost comic to see Toronto pretending to be a US city -- again -- and reporters carrying mikes where the call letters start with "W".
That said, the film is solid. Skerritt picked up a paycheck for doing only a few scenes and Krista Bridges -- an actress you would ordinarily only see in the aforesaid X-Mas knockoffs -- also does a solid job.
I'm quite actually not sure how i feel about this one yet,, there are some parts that i like,, and some i don't ,, first i think that Dougray Scott is a fine actor,, but someone else should have played that role,, second,, they could have at least set it in London,, not the states,, i liked some of the modernization,, with the computers, and him at the hospital as a Dr. and stuff, and mixing all of those compounds together, to try and get the anti-dote. but some of the stuff i didn't' like is when he turns to the lawyer for help,,, why did the writers go in that direction,, but okay,, that aside,, it does get better after the half way point,, when they all get in the courtroom,, very intense there,,without giving away the ending,, i did like the ending very much,, i just think that this could have been written better, set somewhere else,, and this could have been a great movie,, as is,, it's just you're average late nite TV fair.
This is yet another version of Robert Louis Steveson's THE STRANGE CASE
OF DOCTOR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE and if truth be told this is possibly the
most bland version you will see . It's inoffensive containing the sort
of material that'd make it through he censors of a dull daytime TV soap
. It is as uninvolving as it is inoffensive . Director Paolo Barzman
doesn't have a big enough budget to do the story justice and much of
the story is told in medium close up and we get some very choppy
editing . When Doctor Jekyll relates a story about being in the Amazon
we don't get an establishing shot of wild untamed majestic shots of the
tropical rain forest we get a close up of a fire and a couple of
Oriental extras giving the impression that it was filmed in someone's
fireside living room . Hey I wonder if ....
Scottish actor Dougray Scott plays the title character and he's somewhat ill cast in the role . His American accent is totally unconvincing as Dr Henry Jekyll and seems to think Mr Hyde is a bit of a camp homosexual , honestly the villain comes across as some pantomime dame and will have you booing and hissing and throwing popcorn at the screen . It's not even bad enough to be entertaining high camp , just ... oh what's the word ? ... oh bland . That's the word I'm looking for
That said I did see Dougray Scott in an episode of DOCTOR WHO a couple of weeks ago and his performance was probably the best thing about the episode so one wonders if he could be a ready made replacement for Matt Smith once he leaves the role . At the very worst Scott giving a bad performance as the Doctor would be ..... bland
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Although I obviously know the concept of Jekyll and Hyde, this is the
first full film I ever saw on the subject. The movie was decent to
watch, but I have the feeling it's a bit superficial. Never was I
actually scared, shocked or thrilled. It was all too normal for my
Another negative side to the film is its ending. I guess a minimum of 90% of the viewers will be able to guess the ending after seeing the prison interview where the lawyer gives Jekyll the syringe.
Despite this negative critique, the movie also has its up side. The film's mildly entertaining.
All in all decent cinematography, quite superficial narrative, reasonable acting. It's 'watcheable' just don't expect too much of it.
As a borderline schizoid and fan of the original short story I'm always
up for perusing any new J&H material. After catching this curio on Sky
I felt compelled to comment. The usual themes of duality and the nature
of guilt and morality are all present and correct. As is usual in most
screen re-imaginings of Stephenson's tale an obligatory love-interest
is tacked on in the form of a pretty female lawyer with whom Hyde
confides. There's no real gratuitous violence or gore here, the horror
seems to be attempting to stem from the psychological, unfortunately
this never really gels together. As such, we're left with a fairly
entertaining if unnecessary and understated (there's no real physical
changes apparent between Henry & Edward) version of the familiar story.
There's a fairly feeble 'twist' ending that anyone not recovering from
recent cranial surgery should see coming at least a couple of furlongs
5/10. P.S: For a vastly superior contemporary take on the tale viewers could do much worse than check out the recent BBC mini series 'Jekyll' starring James Nesbitt. It's available on DVD and well worth a watch.
Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott), unable to stop himself from
transforming into the murderous Edward Hyde, wants his attorney to
secure him a speedy trial, a guilty verdict and a quick execution.
The star power in this film is Tom Skerritt, which does not say much for this film. But we also have Kim Bubbs (as a secretary), a friend of Killer Reviews. So, that was good enough reason for me to watch it! (See Kim in "The Thing".)
The horror part is pretty average -- this story has been told so many times, you really cannot add a new element to it any more. (What is interesting, at least to me, is that this film seemingly exists in a world circa 2008, but that would be a world where the classic Jekyll/Hyde story never existed... weird.)
The trial scenes... wow, big fail. There is no cross-examination, there is too much conjecture from the defense attorney outside of closing arguments. The person who wrote this film is not familiar with court procedures apparently. There are worse court scenes in films, but this still makes the list of bad ones.
You won't be happy with this movie if you really like the story of Dr
Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It is the product of a big lack of creativity and
respect for the original story.
I think the main problem is that they obviously tried to make this movie as if the story happens for the very first time, which is very wrong to begin with because you can't expect viewers to rediscover the whole thing with such a worldwide known story.
Apart from that, you really won't be satisfied either by the performance of the cast, or the "new plot" for that matter. It contains virtually no suspense, everything from the beginning until the end is very predictable and even the actors seem to have no interest at all for playing in this movie. When the movie ends, it gives you the feeling that they wanted to give you an idea of what it would have been if the events occurred to Henry Jekyll today instead of the late 19th century, but they were either incapable or they wanted it to be done very quickly (a bit like you didn't want to put too much time or effort in your school work last night, so you just applied some basic rules to it and did nothing more, hoping for a reasonable note).
So since they wanted it to look like it's a new story, let me put it this way : If Robert-Louis Stevenson had not written the story in 1886, but this movie would have been the original story, you can be sure nobody would even remember the title some 120 years from now. I give it a 1/10, only because 0 is not available.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Kindly physician Dr. Henry Jekyll (an excellent performance by Dougray Scott) is involved in experiments that unleash his more cocky and lethal serial killer alter ego Mr. Edward Hyde. Unable to repress his deadly and depraved alter ego, Jekyll turns himself over to the authorities and asks smart lawyer Claire Utterson (well played by Krista Bridges) to represent his unusual case in court. Director Paolo Barzman, working from a crafty script by Paul Margolis, smartly updates the story to a modern urban American setting, creates and sustains an appropriately somber mood, offers a neat meditation on the duality of good and evil in the human spirit, and handles the subject matter in a thoughtful, tasteful, and restrained way (the transformation scenes in particular are treated in a subtle and effective manner, with minimal make-up and a noted emphasis on Scott's exceptional acting). Scott simply excels in the juicy lead role: He brings a real frightening intensity to the supremely wicked Hyde and projects a properly tormented anguish as the guilt-ridden Jekyll. Moreover, Scott receives sturdy support from Tom Skerritt as concerned art gallery owner best friend Gabe Utterson, Danette Mackay as loyal housekeeper Mrs. Poole, and Cas Anvar as shrewd attorney D.A. McBride. Pierre Jodoin's slick cinematography gives the picture a pleasing polished look. FM Le Sieur's pulsating score hits the shuddery spot. The surprise twist ending is pretty chilling. Worth a watch.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|