Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueDr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself.Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself.Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Almantas Sinkunas
- Old man
- (as Almantas Sinkünas)
Liubomiras Laucevicius
- First Street man
- (as Liubomiras Lauciavicius)
Avis à la une
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most overplayed, excessively adapted stories ever and by this stage I can confidently say I'm burnt out, but this is actually a passable attempt.
A fairly loyal adaptation of Robert Louis Stevensons classic tale of science gone wrong it tackles many subject matters that leave you thinking after the credits have rolled.
Many have speculated that it's in fact a tale of mental illness, others believe it to be Christian propaganda despite Stevenson himself being an atheist.
With a fantastic cast including John Hannah, veteran and iconic villianous character actor David Warner and Kellie Shirley (Who many of you will know from Eastenders of all things) nobody can fault the performances on display here. It looks fantastic, it's well crafted and near flawlessly written.
So what went wrong? Well I think the finale was a tad hammed up by Hannah, he's a great actor but he seemed to run out of steam here. To make matters worse again this is a ridiculously over played story, how many times must we see the struggle between Jekyll & Hyde?
Regardless for fans of this timeless classic this is one of the better versions. For me nothing comes close to the television mini series Jekyll (2007).
The Good:
Very well made
Fantastic cast
The Bad:
Hannah can't quite pull off Hyde
Seen it considerably too many times
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
David Warner is a movie stealer
A fairly loyal adaptation of Robert Louis Stevensons classic tale of science gone wrong it tackles many subject matters that leave you thinking after the credits have rolled.
Many have speculated that it's in fact a tale of mental illness, others believe it to be Christian propaganda despite Stevenson himself being an atheist.
With a fantastic cast including John Hannah, veteran and iconic villianous character actor David Warner and Kellie Shirley (Who many of you will know from Eastenders of all things) nobody can fault the performances on display here. It looks fantastic, it's well crafted and near flawlessly written.
So what went wrong? Well I think the finale was a tad hammed up by Hannah, he's a great actor but he seemed to run out of steam here. To make matters worse again this is a ridiculously over played story, how many times must we see the struggle between Jekyll & Hyde?
Regardless for fans of this timeless classic this is one of the better versions. For me nothing comes close to the television mini series Jekyll (2007).
The Good:
Very well made
Fantastic cast
The Bad:
Hannah can't quite pull off Hyde
Seen it considerably too many times
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
David Warner is a movie stealer
This movie is very scary. 5.7 is just underrating. This is movie that will make your hairs stand on end. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It is based on one of the best book ever. And it is one of the best movie ever. Doctor Jekyll try to get ride of his evil self. But this evil self his taking him over. This is a great horror story. Brian Pettifer is a great actor. John Hannah is great actor. He is very scary in this movie. Maurice Phillips is a great director. See this movie. This movie is a must see. Gerard Horan is a great actor. This movie is a great. See it.
10goebelhe
I have seen one of the Jekyll-and-Hyde films so far. But this one is much better since it shows Hyde as he was described in the novel: as a person that seems different looking although there is no obvious malformation present (like it was overdone in the "League of the extraordinary gentlemen" and also in the movie from 1931). John Hannah demonstrates perfectly here that the evil does not have to be connected to a horrible look. He did a great job working out the psychological dark side of this tragic figure. The changes from Jekyll to Hyde were brilliantly filmed. For everybody who is interested in the novel this film is certainly a must-see.
This 2003, T.V version, brings this dark tale bang up to date. Starring John Hannah, it's the most brutal version yet produced. The creation of the Victorian Era is both honest and truthful. The film chiefly deals with the vice, crime and downright seediness of these subversive times. David Warner is the fine back-up.
Even more so than FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA, screen versions of Stevenson's THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE are based on other screen versions of the same story. There is no evidence anyone has gone back to see what was in the original story (or even what its title was). This version assumes that Jekyll does not change physically, but only mentally. John Hannah is particularly uninteresting in the role of the schizoid doctor. Major characters are invented and thrown into the plot. With all this liberty to invent Martyn Hesford should have been able to improve on the story, but does not. The period feel is weak as if insufficient research and checking was done. (Jekyll refers to "Sir Danvers," not "Sir Henry.")
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe last TV role of James Saxon.
- Citations
Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde: I'm *not* Dr Jekyll. I'm Mr Hyde.
- ConnexionsVersion of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1908)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2003) officially released in Canada in English?
Répondre