During my life, and I'm only 17 now, I've seen many adaptation's of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". There has been probably 20 different film version's of the story and my absolute favorite is still the Fredrik March version from 1931, probably because it was the first I ever saw. After that I've seen many good adaptation's (John Barrymore, Jack Palance, "I, Monster" starring Christopher Lee) and many bad adaptation's (Anthony Perkins in "Edge of Sanity", Michael Caine in "Jekyll and Hyde") and some that are really interestingly made (Dr. Jekyll et les femmes, Mary Reilly).
This version, starring/directed/co-produced/co-write/designed by Mark Redfield for Redfield Arts, belongs to the category of interestingly made. As a plot it doesn't bring anything new to the story that we all know well. Bit interestingly it doesn't even try to. This movie is based not only to Stevenson's story but also a stage play by Mark Redfield and Stuart Voytilla( who is co-writing and co-producing this film). Origin of the stage is well showed as there is much dialog and scene's try to stay as close to each others as possible. For all the films I've seen this is the only one that start's the story from Jekyll's friend's point of view. Hyde already is there in the beginning. But because we all know the truth about Jekyll and Hyde, Redfield doesn't wait till the end to show it, but from the middle of the movie story is shown from Jekyll/Hyde's point of view.
It's easy to see that design's by Redfield are miniatures and actors have mostly stand in front of a blue-screen. But it actually helps the film, creating own kind of a dream world, instead of exact copy of a Victorian London. Also Nalin Tanjea's music and Karl E. DeVos's camera work helps to create the atmosphere.
Actors are well chosen, mostly everyone from theater. Kosha Engler as Jekyll's fiancée and R. Scott Thompson as her arrogant brother both play's well their upper class parts. As in the role of Utterson, who is main character in original novel, they couldn't have come with the better choice than Carl Randolph. Also J.R. Lyston as comical detective and Robert Leembruggen in the double role of menacing Jack Little and curious Lord Ashton (why they didn't call him Enfield as in the book, I don't know) are doing good job. Elena Torrez in the role of prostitute Claire does wonderful job, playing both innocent victim and seductive mistress. And finally; Mark Redfield. Usually when a director also plays the leading role I think he is so full of himself (I can't help feeling that when I see Kenneth Brannagh), but Redfield not only is good director but also make's a good role as Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde. His Jekyll is a scientist who just can't stop when it is still possible and Hyde as a true nature of him, without guilt or shame. I also love his make-up, made by Bob Yoho. The only one in cast I don't like is Jeff Miller as Parker, mainly because his role is useless. Everything he does could have been done by Dr. Lanyon (Chuck Richards).
The idea of moving film from 1886 to 1900 is fantastic. During the film we see reference to architect Bertelli, Lumiere- brothers, Arthur Conan Doyle and Jack the Ripper. Also film is full of references to other classic films. The movie starts as a combination of Curse of Frankenstein and Snow-white. And in one scene you see pictures of Richard Mansfield, Fredrik March and John Barrymore at Jekyll's desk. And I love Hyde's line taken from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: "I will be with Jekyll at his wedding night".
So, what is wrong with this film? Plot. What works in a stage doesn't always work in film. And here it is well proved.
Still a very fine effort to re-make a classic story. I recommend to any Jekyll and Hyde fan.
