O Médico e o Monstro

I was weary to watch this film as I am a huge fan of the RLS novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." In my opinion, there have only been two actors to properly play the character(s): John Malkovich in "Mary Reilly" and Fredric March in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." I was weary to watch this because I saw a TV movie made about 13 years ago that starred Michael Caine. It was probably the worst intrepretation of Henry and Edward that has ever been presented. Then I heard of a new version starring the drunk swindler of the "Mummy" movies. I was scared to death. Having just watched it last night, I am still trying to find a way that any Jekyll & Hyde film in the future can outdo this one. John Hannah was phenomonal. He truly makes that viewer pity and hate his Jekyll. That's right, his JEKYLL. The film makes sure that the viewers are left no easy questions to answer. While I still think that "Mary Reilly" is the best Jekyll & Hyde film to date, this version makes more complex decisions, like having no physical distinction between the two characters. It's all a state of mind. There is no Edward Hyde, just Henry Jekyll left with no inhibitions and a twist of wickedness. All of the supporting characters, especially Mabel and Sir Danvers, are beyond exceptional. The way they portray events from the novel, such as the beating of the girl, the death of a main character, Jekyll's seclusion, Hyde's nature, are done differently from the novel but effectively none the less. A few things added, most of all the relationship between Jekyll and Mabel, bring the film to a level of brilliance that other past adaptations have failed to reach. I encourage everyone to see this film as soon as possible. Now I just have to wait for the DVD.

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

I checked out this version of J&H on TV mainly because I'm a fan of John Hannah, but he was very disappointing in this role. It was his affability that made him a treat to watch in films such as 'Sliding Doors' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral', and it is that very trait that undermines his portrayal of Mr Hyde. He is completely unconvincing as a menacing, dangerous figure, and the decision not to present Mr Hyde as physically different from Dr Jekyll exacerbates this problem, although it is an interesting choice artistically and could have paid rich dividends in the hands of an actor capable of projecting a truly intimidating presence. Also, his acts of barbarity, which are obviously meant to be shocking, don't have the desired effect; this is partly because of our familiarity with the story, but more so because of the lack of any real tension or suspense of any kind. Not only does Mr Hyde not seem as menacing as he is meant to be, but Dr Jekyll never convinces us that he was a paragon of virtue in the first place, due to inadequate exposure in the screenplay as well as the underwhelming acting and direction. The performances from the supporting actors likewise feel rather wet and unconvincing.

It seems to me that the theme of this film was that there truly was no difference between Jekyll and Hyde, and that it was Dr Jekyll who deliberately chose evil. This point is made repeatedly in several repetitive scenes where Dr Jekyll keeps talking about "removing impurities" and that in the end he will "contain evil", and the servant Mabel time and again discusses the fact that we are able to choose between good and evil. This might have been an interesting subject had is been dealt with more subtly. The battle between the good and evil sides of a person also became more ridiculous as it became more explicit, and the resolution seemed to be designed more for its non-existent shock value than for any faithfulness to either the tale as it was originally told or to the tale as it had been told thus far in this film.

Even if, or maybe especially if you are a fan of John Hannah, stay clear of this film if you want to avoid being disappointed on all levels.

The story if 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' by Robert Louis Stevenson is already a good, solid one, with powerful and relevant themes in it, on its own. Yet this TV movie chooses to alter the story with as the end result, a movie with a story that lacks a real point or a good main plot line.

The movie mixes several elements from other previous Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies (even from "Mary Reilly") but yet it fails to use the most interesting and intriguing elements. The story isn't always interesting enough to follow because of this but in this case that's not just only the scripts fault.

Also of course a big problem of the movie is that it has a typical made-for-TV look, which is never a really positive thing. The costumes and sets are cheap looking and far from impressive. I also really didn't liked the movie its visual style. Judging by this movie I have the feeling that the cinematographer thinks of himself that he is brilliant. He uses artistic positions and lighting with as a result that every sequences feels fabricated and planned out. It makes the movie, story and its characters feel very distant because of this. Also the directing isn't top-class. The movie is filled with a couple of overdone sequences, which mainly feature some slow-motion effects to make the movie feel extra artistic. The end result is the opposite of what the movie makers tried to achieve. Also the musical score is typical simple made-for-TV stuff, which means that's its more distracting and irritating, than that it adds to the atmosphere of the movie.

I at first had trouble seeing John Hannah in the main part as Jekyll/Hyde. I don't know, after his role in the two Mummy movies I have difficulties taking him serious in serious roles, especially when he plays the main character. But once I got accustomed to seeing him playing the Jekyll/Hyde character he was alright. It's too bad that the material and crew he had to work with wasn't the best. Most of the other characters feel like they were just thrown into the story to fill it up. None of them serves a significant enough purpose in the story. Also the actors that portray them aren't the most charismatic or talented persons around, which also certainly obviously doesn't help the movie and story.

The movie tries to be different in its style but especially its story. This movie basically is a free interpretation of the classic 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' that abandons lots of themes and elements from the novel. The struggle between the good and evil side of a person is brought well and effective to the screen but its too bad that the rest of the story and its alterations work out far from well. The movie lacks a good main plot and purpose. It makes this version of the Jekyll and Hyde story a bit or a redundant one that adds far too little interesting to the classic story.

An original but not interesting enough made-for-TV interpretation of the famous story.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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.")