Doctor Jekyll

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.

The traditional story of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde given a modern spin, starting Eddie Izzard.

I was really excited about seeing it, and keen to see what Izzard was going to inject into the role. The result, was sadly underwhelming. I liked the start, but it just became dull and a little boring at times, I didn't care for the ending.

I thought the cinema would have been packed out for this on the opening weekend, there were four of us, that should have been enough.

I was really hoping for a dark, gothic horror, what it turned out to be was a fairly lame comedy, with horror elements here and there. I didn't care much for Izzard's character, just irritating more than anything.

It was hard at times to work out which was Jekyll and which was Hyde, they could have gone a lot further.

Acting wise, Izzard was alright, I can't say there was anything particularly good, the quality I thought, came from Lindsay Duncan.

Watchable enough, but very disappointed.

5/10.

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.

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.

While those audience members expecting full-blown Gothic horror may be disappointed, older viewers who remember the Hammer studio's psychological thrillers, particularly Fear in the Night, Fanatic, Crescendo and Paranoiac, may feel more well-disposed to this thrilling film.

This film niftily straddles the Gothic horrors of Terence Fisher and the studio's so-called mini-Hitchcocks from the likes of Freddie Francis and Val Guest. The latter films often took place in enclosed setting and have a claustrophobic feel, and either sculptured b/w or highly stylised colour photography, and this film neatly reflects that style, while the music score delivers the required feel.

Izzard gives a great performance that rivals the scenery-chewing performances of the stars of Hammer's previous grands guinols, Bette Davis, Tallulah Bankhead and Margaurite Scott.

Yes, there are a few plot flaws, and yes, the dénoûment is signalled at the start, but unlike the previous attemps to reboot Hammer, this feels right and not like an Amicus spin-off, so let's be thankful for this effort and enjoy it.