Doctor Jekyll

I was delighted to hear of the rebirth of the old Hammer label, and was very much looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, it was mostly a disappointment.

There is, admittedly, much to like. Eddie Izzard is good as the secretive and reclusive Nina Jekyll, and Scott Chambers exudes the right level of naivety.

On the other hand, there were flaws. Lindsay Duncan was excellent when she was on screen, but not nearly enough was made of her character; and Rob seemed to be persuaded to assist Dr Jekyll so easily that it stretched credulity to breaking point. An additional scene in which he learns of the horrific double nature of his employer would've added much.

In addition, the casting of Izzard - a transexual actor - in the title role led me to expect a transformation that was gender-fluid, at the least. In my view this would've made a more interesting film, and was a wasted opportunity.

The sub-plot regarding Rob's daughter was a nice touch, and the twist at the end was clever.

I hope Hammer is revived, but if it is, this film will not be regarded as its greatest achievement.

I can't be the only one who thinks that Scott Chambers bears an uncanny resemblance to Barry Keoghan? Anyway, after a career in petty theft and drugs - and with a seriously ill daughter - "Rob" (Chambers) finds himself in front of the rather imperious "Sandra" (Lindsay Duncan) and her boss "Nina" (Eddie Izzard). The latter is looking for some help around her huge stately home and for some reason she takes a bit of a shine to the young man. After a shaky start, the two start to become friends and he is promised the funds to see his daughter "Ari" gets the treatment she needs. Snag? Well "Rob" has to help her out with a rather monstrous request. Has he got what it takes? The first twenty minutes of this are actually quite good - Duncan is fine as the over-bearing assistant and there's a bit of chemistry between Izzard and her new-found friend. Quickly though, there emerge a few silly sub-plots and, indeed, plot holes before an ending that I felt really quite disappointing. To be fair, Dan Kelly-Mulhern has tried to do something a bit different with this Stevenson story - never an easy thing when it's already been pretty much done to death - but this just runs out of steam by the half way mark and thereafter is all a bit daft. It's an OK watch for ninety minutes, but you won't recall it a week afterwards and there's really nothing remotely scary to worry about either.

I went into this today with a blank mind, thinking okay I will give Eddie a chance and boy was I disappointed.

Firstly the movie plays like a teen drama more than a hammer horror movie.

There's no horror in this movie to even count on one hand.

Now there was nothing wrong with the acting or the story but it played more on the side of a teen drama than a horror film, which was a huge mistake.

This movie could have been so good with the same cast if the movie was done better.

So all in all this film is not worth seeing and if this happens to be hammer's movie come back, we'll they have played a bad hand.

Give this a miss and go and seek the older hammer movies if you want a good horror film.

Thanks to director Joe Stephenson and Hammer Studios, we have DOCTOR JEKYLL, a modern "re-imagining" of the famous 1886 novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. There have been a number of these over the years, but Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide are such classic characters from the horror and weird fiction canon that my genre-loving ass was more than happy to experience another outing.

The consensus? Mixed. I found plenty to love here but your enjoyment will ultimately come from your disposition and patience towards the horror genre itself and, specifically, the low-budget-veering on camp-gothic horror that Hammer is best known for.

Positives? The leads. They shine individually, but it's really their scenes together that are the true stars. Eddie Izzard was an absolute delight on screen and I'd love to see her in more stuff. Scott Chambers was quite good too, the charm and innocence of Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates (early Psycho) highly present throughout this particular performance; whether this was intentional or not I do not know but I very much enjoyed it.

Negatives? This has a very low-budget feel and a MESSY plot. Nothing felt very thoroughly thought out and I believe a few head-scratches and eye-rolls could have been avoided with just a few more passes on the script.

RANDOM PRAISE +

-In this universe, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide can't have cereal and I find that very, very funny.

RANDOM CRITIQUE -

• A character chooses to dismiss the danger and implications of a bloody phone. What a silly goose.

TAKEAWAY ?

-Green cigarettes (just cigarettes in general tbh) should be avoided.

This one is a low-end pseudo-horror flick that will have the Hammer founders revolving in their graves. The quality of this is many miles away from the iconic Hammer productions of old.

This one is a shoe-string budget movie with an interesting premise (although it is many miles removed from the original story and its undepinnings: the "Hyde" personality here is more of a curse that can be passed onto another person, instead of the animal-self gaining hold of the individual who takes the "medicine". This is a major departure from the original story, which was completely sci-fi - this new take is the opposite of sci-fi: it's suppernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo).

What saves this flick from total disaster is that the 2 lead actors do a pretty decent job, and that the editor has manajed to pull a cut that's half-decently paced.

Everything else reeks of 3rd-tier, amateurish wannabe-ism. You will never see any of the other perople in the cast in any movie or series anytime soon. (if you're lucky)