I read the book years ago, but seeing the film, nothing stood out as glaringly different. What both pieces manage to do, while inserting the Roberts character, is keep true to the feel and events of the original Stevenson novel. In fact, it manages to do this better than any adaptation on film or stage. Everything from event, to described layout for Jekyll's home and laboratory, to the various locations throughout London are presented in vivid detail on screen. That is an amazing thing for any film adaptation to do.
Roberts gets points for stepping into the role of Mary Reilly, thereby making this film the only movie in which Julia Roberts doesn't play Julia Roberts. It's definitely unusual to see her as a character so introverted, in a position where, while she sees almost everything going on, she must deal with her own disbelief and her station, which demands she not say or do anything about it.
This was actually my first Malkovich film, and that is really a credit to him. His versatile portrayal of Jekyll and Hyde leaves him both endearing and terrifying at the same time.
Glenn Close is also a treat as Ms. Farraday.
Definitely worth a watch if you're a fan of the original Stevenson novel.
Roberts gets points for stepping into the role of Mary Reilly, thereby making this film the only movie in which Julia Roberts doesn't play Julia Roberts. It's definitely unusual to see her as a character so introverted, in a position where, while she sees almost everything going on, she must deal with her own disbelief and her station, which demands she not say or do anything about it.
This was actually my first Malkovich film, and that is really a credit to him. His versatile portrayal of Jekyll and Hyde leaves him both endearing and terrifying at the same time.
Glenn Close is also a treat as Ms. Farraday.
Definitely worth a watch if you're a fan of the original Stevenson novel.
Tell Your Friends