Genres

Visitors Review

kai ringler 2012-05-22 02:41:42

Updated Jeckyll and Hyde

I'm quite actually not sure how i feel about this one yet,, there aresome parts that i like,, and some i don't ,, first i think that DougrayScott is a fine actor,, but someone else should have played that role,,second,, they could have at least set it in London,, not the states,, iliked some of the modernization,, with the computers, and him at thehospital as a Dr. and stuff, and mixing all of those compoundstogether, to try and get the anti-dote. but some of the stuff i didn't'like is when he turns to the lawyer for help,,, why did the writers goin that direction,, but okay,, that aside,, it does get better afterthe half way point,, when they all get in the courtroom,, very intensethere,,without giving away the ending,, i did like the ending verymuch,, i just think that this could have been written better, setsomewhere else,, and this could have been a great movie,, as is,, it'sjust you're average late nite TV fair.

jadflack 2012-05-21 16:18:40

a good effort

A serial killer stalks the city of Boston and a DR Jeckyll goes to alawyer claiming to be the serial killer and that he can turn intoanother person. You have to give this Canadian t.v movie updating ofthe oft told classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale credit for giving it afresh approach.This is pleasingly sombre and manages for the most partto be genuinely unsettling straight from the films beginning until itruns out of steam in a courtroom finale.It does offer a different butunsatisfying twist at the end.Dougray Scott in the lead role(s)and invery little makeup to distinquish the two characters is very, verygood.A good effort overall.

Mikey_0782 2012-05-18 10:25:56

Very bad movie

You won't be happy with this movie if you really like the story of DrJekyll and Mr Hyde. It is the product of a big lack of creativity andrespect for the original story.I think the main problem is that they obviously tried to make thismovie as if the story happens for the very first time, which is verywrong to begin with because you can't expect viewers to rediscover thewhole thing with such a worldwide known story.Apart from that, you really won't be satisfied either by theperformance of the cast, or the "new plot" for that matter. It containsvirtually no suspense, everything from the beginning until the end isvery predictable and even the actors seem to have no interest at allfor playing in this movie. When the movie ends, it gives you thefeeling that they wanted to give you an idea of what it would have beenif the events occurred to Henry Jekyll today instead of the late 19thcentury, but they were either incapable or they wanted it to be donevery quickly (a bit like you didn't want to put too much time or effortin your school work last night, so you just applied some basic rules toit and did nothing more, hoping for a reasonable note).So since they wanted it to look like it's a new story, let me put itthis way : If Robert-Louis Stevenson had not written the story in 1886,but this movie would have been the original story, you can be surenobody would even remember the title some 120 years from now. I give ita 1/10, only because 0 is not available.

Paul Andrews 2012-05-17 18:30:51

Dull modernized version of the classic tale.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is set in Boston where Harvard graduate doctor& scientist Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott) has developed a serum thatallows for the separate of the good & bad within us creating a distinctpersonality for each. Unfortunately Dr. Jekyll's bad side who callshimself Mr. Hyde likes to go around killing young women, six so far.Convinced that he is responsible Dr. Jekyll turns himself over tolawyer Claire Wheaton (Krista Bridges) & confesses all but she doesn'tbelieve him at first, eventually Claire agrees to defend Jekyll & basesher case on the fact that Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde are two completelyseparate people. Will the jury buy it? Will Dr. Jekyll get the deathpenalty for Mr. Hyde's crimes?This Canadian made-for-telly updating of Robert Louis Stevenson's muchfilmed novel was directed by Paolo Barzman & only keeps the merestthemes & ideas from the original book with the setting modern Americaunlike period London & after the first fifty odd minutes the filmswitches from bland Jekyll and Hyde to a dull courtroom drama as Jekyllstands trial. There's not much atmosphere or attention to detail here,the kills are forgettable & tame, there's no bubbling test tubes orancient medical equipment & the reasoning here is some nonsense aboutancient Amazonian medical practices using rare flowers which neverreally comes to anything, neither does the film as a whole really. Themurder trial is boring, there's no mystery, there's zero tension, thecharacter's are poor, the dialogue is forgettable & it just feels smallscale, Dr. Jekyll's housekeeper is retained from the novel but the mainfocus of the film is Claire the lawyer as it is from her perspectivethe story is told. At almost 90 minutes it feels long & there's areally predictable twist ending which you can see coming a mile off,the whole affair although competent is just bland & fails to generateany excitement or tension.Filmed many times this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is very modernized & itjust doesn't feel like the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde films, itfeels like a TV film with bright lighting, a family friendly lack ofviolence & since when did turning in Mr. Hyde let you get run over &knocked about six feet up the road by a huge truck & just get up & walkaway totally unhurt? There's zero gore here, Jekyll slits his wrists &a bit of blood is seen on the floor but that's it.Although set in Boston this was filmed in Montréal in Québec in Canada,the whole film looks bland & there's no sort of atmosphere or style atall. Dougray Scott is rather flat as Jekyll & not much better playingHyde, Tom Skerritt has a small role as Jekyll's friend.Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a classic tale that has been filmed numeroustimes already going back to the 30's at least & this modern faceless &throughly dull adaption that turns into some horrible courtroom dramais surely unneeded & one of the worst & least recognisable whencompared to the original Stevenson novel.

2012-05-17 05:48:25

Good suspense movie.

This review is from: Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (DVD) Quite a bit different from the first one made but still a good movie full of suspense.

gavin6942 2012-05-16 15:27:55

Average Horror Film With a Weak Trial Drama

Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott), unable to stop himself fromtransforming into the murderous Edward Hyde, wants his attorney tosecure him a speedy trial, a guilty verdict and a quick execution.The star power in this film is Tom Skerritt, which does not say muchfor this film. But we also have Kim Bubbs (as a secretary), a friend ofKiller Reviews. So, that was good enough reason for me to watch it!(See Kim in "The Thing".) The horror part is pretty average -- this story has been told so manytimes, you really cannot add a new element to it any more. (What isinteresting, at least to me, is that this film seemingly exists in aworld circa 2008, but that would be a world where the classicJekyll/Hyde story never existed... weird.) The trial scenes... wow, big fail. There is no cross-examination, thereis too much conjecture from the defense attorney outside of closingarguments. The person who wrote this film is not familiar with courtprocedures apparently. There are worse court scenes in films, but thisstill makes the list of bad ones.

sweet lidolly 2012-05-09 05:22:03

Worth watching but don't expect Oscar-wothiness.

A good film (taking in consideration it was made for TV, hence with a limited time for takes and limited budget). I enjoyed it, the end in particular. It didn't come as much of a surprise, but I still liked the twist that was presented and the last scene of the movie. Dougray Scott's acting was good(in the characters of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde); I have my reservations about Krista Bridges (in the characters of Claire Wheaton) - she did not stand out for me, there was no reason for me to remember her for future appearances; Tom Skerritt (in the characters of Gabe Utterson) was convincing enough as well as Danette Mackay (in the characters of Mrs. Poole). The direction was good as well, I got the idea all the time, I knew what was happening so I feel this aspect of the movie was covered well. Same goes for the visuals, very good effects for TV, quite liked the eyes-switching idea. Overall a good modern twist to an old tale, worth watching as long as you don't expect Oscar-worthy things from it.

dcmsn 2012-05-08 18:19:12

DR. Boring MR. Stiff

I love how people say the transformation was good when there is littletransformation from Dr. to Hyde. All they did here was have the actortwitch his head and act stiff and make bizarre faces like he wasconstipated. So all you have is the worst remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!The one BIG mistake this film makes is when the helper of DR. Jekylltestifies, it doesn't make any sense just like most of this slow movingfarce.I gave it a 2 instead of 1 cause of the yellow lights that were usedduring the night scenes (HPS Bulbs In the Light Fixtures) just sheerbrilliance.

2012-05-06 23:30:26

A Cheap Copy of the Original

The film opens at night on a big city. [Boston?] A prostitute meets a customer who wants a lot from her. The next morning the man returns to his mansion and laboratory. His experiment isn't working. Dr. Jekyll works in a big hospital. Brutal murders are being committed in the city by a monster. Dr. Jekyll visits a lawyer to confess his crimes, but she doesn't believe him. People who confess to horrible crimes are usually innocent. Dr. Jekyll has a near accident in the street. Back at the hospital a survivor of a brutal attack dies. The lawyer visits Dr. Jekyll's mansion and snoops.Dr. Jekyll wonders how one person can have both good and bad thoughts. He found a rare South American flower in the Amazon that had psycho-tropic effects. He experimented on himself. Theme music gives a clue to the split personality of Mr. Edward Hyde. This dark side keeps taking over. His lawyer suggests a voluntary commitment to a hospital. But Hyde escapes! The police arrest Dr. Jekyll. Will the antidote cure him? His lawyer tries to defend him by finding the Mr. Hyde who is the real killer. Will the jury believe this? Will there be a happy ending?I understand the economics of a modern dress version to cut down on expenses. But the story is inferior to the original, and the cast is too small as well. When the copyrights expire other writers can use the characters in their stories. But they are rarely equal to the original. If they had the talents they would create original stories, not a modified version. The original story was about a kind physician who became a devil after drinking a potion. It seemed like an argument for Prohibition. Or could it be a symbol for a cyclical economy?

samsonsan ::: 2012-05-06 07:05:19

mediocre

well, the movie was fine, and the ending was just as i expected...imean, when he meats the girl and he truly is mister bad guy...thatsjust what i thought that was gonna happen...and a movie should notleave expectations...at least not a good one..it should surpriseyou..thats why i think it only deserves a 5 rating from me :-?? i don'tknow bout the rest of you :-?? i say that if a little more effort wasused on the making of the film it would have been a better one andfurthermore it did not follow the classic storyline it was tofuturistic not quit...it was...i mean the action was not placed in theright time..from what i know, it normally happens in the early 18's iguess, but this movie is in the contemporary era and that just messesup all the action in the movie..it is though an original idea iguess..respect

Mattphesto 2012-05-03 21:20:33

Not half bad, but not half good either.

As a borderline schizoid and fan of the original short story I'm alwaysup for perusing any new J&H material. After catching this curio on SkyI felt compelled to comment. The usual themes of duality and the natureof guilt and morality are all present and correct. As is usual in mostscreen re-imaginings of Stephenson's tale an obligatory love-interestis tacked on in the form of a pretty female lawyer with whom Hydeconfides. There's no real gratuitous violence or gore here, the horrorseems to be attempting to stem from the psychological, unfortunatelythis never really gels together. As such, we're left with a fairlyentertaining if unnecessary and understated (there's no real physicalchanges apparent between Henry & Edward) version of the familiar story.There's a fairly feeble 'twist' ending that anyone not recovering fromrecent cranial surgery should see coming at least a couple of furlongsoff.5/10. P.S: For a vastly superior contemporary take on the tale viewerscould do much worse than check out the recent BBC mini series 'Jekyll'starring James Nesbitt. It's available on DVD and well worth a watch.

Claudio Carvalho 2012-05-03 00:05:08

Forgettable Update

In Boston, a mysterious serial-killer is attacking and murdering women.The distinguished Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott) asks his friend GabeUtterson (Tom Skerritt) to indicate an attorney for him and heschedules a visit to Claire Wheaton (Krista Bridges). He confesses thathe was the subject of his research with psychotropic trying to isolatethe evil side of the human beings and he is responsible for themurders. When Dr. Jekyll goes to court for the trial, Claire wants toprove that the killer is the unknown Mr. Edward Hyde.This umpteenth version of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" is a forgettableupdate of the classic story. Set in Boston in the present days, insteadof London in the end of the Nineteenth Century, the plot is confusedand the conclusion is predictable in spite of the good acting ofDougray Scott. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – O Médico e o Monstro" ("Dr.Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – The Doctor and the Monster")

2012-04-24 16:10:37

Unfair Reviews

I've read some of these reviews and find that they are rather unfair. We all know the story. I rather enjoyed this one and found the acting was excellent.

kryziss 2012-04-24 07:28:17

Superficial Jekyll and Hyde

Although I obviously know the concept of Jekyll and Hyde, this is thefirst full film I ever saw on the subject. The movie was decent towatch, but I have the feeling it's a bit superficial. Never was Iactually scared, shocked or thrilled. It was all too normal for mytaste.Another negative side to the film is its ending. I guess a minimum of90% of the viewers will be able to guess the ending after seeing theprison interview where the lawyer gives Jekyll the syringe.Despite this negative critique, the movie also has its up side. Thefilm's mildly entertaining.All in all decent cinematography, quite superficial narrative,reasonable acting. It's 'watcheable' just don't expect too much of it.