Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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've only watched this version three times the first time I saw this I was quite young so I didn't understand most of the film because it was very different from the cartoon adaptation and the Frederick March adaptation this film is low budget and cost approximately £750'000 to make however the sets look fantastic I'm convinced some of them were real John Hannah is good as Dr Henry Jekyll he's good at playing Edward Hyde to but isn't the best actor to portray Hyde this film isn't perfect some things can be weird like the slo motion effects and Mr Hydes weird deep voice but this film has grown on me it's pretty good the atmosphere and look of the film is fantastic and the deep piano pipe organ music is something that I love to hear everytime I watch this.

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.")