Genres

Visitors Review

TobyS 2012-05-25 06:48:25

Pretty good film for a rainy day

Mary Reilly is a great film to watch on a rainy afternoon. Oftencriticizedas boring and a low point in Julia Roberts career, I found it to be a greatGothic story. While I can understand and see why people were put to sleepby the film, I think it's a refreshing change of pace from the standardpopcorn flick that is only interested in being the number 1 film at the boxoffice Monday morning. John Malkovich turns in a great performance of theJekyll/Hyde character, and Glenn Close steals the few scenes she's in as aMadame of a brothel. Julia Roberts plays against type as a dourchambermaid, and I think that's what put off so many people. Obviously,most people like their Julia flashing her now $20 million dollar smile. Isay, "good for you for trying something different." If you haven't seenMary Reilly, watch it on the next rainy day and enjoy it.My grade: 8 out of 10

Mountie 2012-05-24 21:42:38

The only thing that grabbed me when I saw this film was my girlfriend begging me to turn it off.

This movie was very boring. Perhaps I saw too many cartoons about thisstory. I kept waiting for something to happen, but nothing ever did. Donot expect any suspense. This was more of a documentary than anything else.Don't waste your time, watch a cartoon about this story instead. Robert'saccent was really bad and the acting by both leading actors looked as ifthey were thinking of something else and were really bored when they weremaking the film.

moonspinner55 2012-05-15 02:03:02

A noble attempt by Roberts to try something different...

From Valerie Martin's novel, a surprisingly literate and serious-mindeddrama about a housemaid (Julia Roberts) working in the residence ofcreepy Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich); she's inexplicably drawn to him andhis dark experiments, slowly earning his trust and becoming hisafter-hours confidante. One wouldn't think this downbeat materialsuitable for mega-watt star Roberts, but her lead performance isfragile, low-keyed and admirable; her Irish accent quavers, and in herquest to become this meek woman she loses her innate sweetness, yetit's still respectable work. Malkovich, on the other hand, is terriblyone-note, and the film waits too long to spring surprises on us(they're all in the final act). Director Stephen Frears loves aromantically gloomy atmosphere, and his picture is absorbing andhandsomely-made, but it may leave many viewers feeling testy andimpatient. **1/2 from ****

2012-05-14 12:04:07

Forget Critics. MARY REILLY Impresses. Roberts Shines.

This is a good example as to why seeing a movie yourself is better than looking to critics to decide your opinions. Despite the spanking this movie received, MARY REILLY is a surprising psychological thriller with a number of tasty elements to it. Malkovich's Jekyl/Hyde is a schizophrenic man and not a monster. You cannot take your eyes off the screen when Robert's mousy, tormented maid is shown. Please take a look at this movie. It may entertain you a lot.

2012-05-13 10:23:31

Murder in the shadows and fog

This is one creepy film! It's intoxicating in it's slow pace, beautiful images and complex relationships. I'd classisfy it as a horror/love sorty. But it's not the kind of horror that revels in gallons of blood an decapitated corpses like Bram Stoker's Dracula. The gore is kept to a minimum, but when it does appear, it's highly affective. There's a lot of suspense in the relationships between Mary and the other servants, Jekel and Hyde. The colors are crisp and vibrant, while blacks are very dark. There is a lot of fog and shadow in the film, yet those subtlities are captured beautifully here as well. Only the widescreen version is available here and thankfully, it's anamorphic. There are few extras included which is a shame, becasue a commentary and/or an in dpeth making of documentary would've been very insightful.If you like composed, suspense-filled drama with a dark horror edge, you'll really enjoy Mary Reily. Julia Roberts and Mackovich give very solid preformances that immediately draw you into the story. Terrific film for a dark stormy night.

2012-05-12 21:49:16

Not-so Pretty Woman

I saw this movie in the theatres when it first came out in 1996, and have to admit that at the time, it didn't leave much of an impression. I'm a reader of classic literature, and was familiar enough with Robert Louis Stevenson's original masterpiece, though I have never read the modern adaptation by Valerie Martin, on which this movie is largely based. I'm not one of the purists who gets bent out of shape if a movie deviates all that much from a written source, provided the source is fictional, and the movie well-done in it's own right. I actually appreciated the twist of telling the classic Jeckyll-Hyde story from the viewpoint of a woman, as this was particularly absent in Stevenson's original work.I picked up a copy of the DVD the other day (not sure why), and after watching this little-known, atmospheric movie again the other night, have decided that it's better the second time around. Maybe that's the better way to judge most movies after all: some clearly blow you away with the first viewing, but many films like that, when viewed again after the distance of many years, lose their luster- "Mary Reilly" is the other way around for me. Watching it again after 12 years, I appreciated many aspects of the movie that just slipped by me the first time.For one, while much has been made of the "miscasting" of Julia Roberts, and her on-again, off-again Irish accent in this film, I think it's actually one of her better acting performances. I'm not a fan of Robert's, mainly because the bulk of her movies involve precious little serious acting: most of the time she is just asked to look pretty. "Mary Reilly" (where she is a house servant to the troubled Dr. Jeckyll- John Malkovich- in 1885 London) is the only movie of hers I have seen where her body is not primarily on display. Wearing period attire throughout the film, and with generally no makeup to embellish her face (which actually looks somewhat scarred and even haggard in many scenes), she manages to convey Mary's conflicting emotions very well.....she clearly has a fondness for Dr. Jeckyll, and conveys both fear and paradoxical attraction to the malevolent Hyde without being given all that much to say. Some real acting going on here, and while some just call this miscasting, I appreciated a side of this actress that I've not seen on display before. Her 50:50 success with the Irish accent didn't bother me as much as it apparently did for many other reviewers: at least she tried. Odd that no one gets on Malkovich (a superb actor, particularly in menacing roles like Hyde) for NEVER attempting the same. What bothered me more about Malkovich's character was not the lack of any attempt to make Hyde physically much different from Jeckyll (which many thought was hilariously thin), but the fact that Hyde's voice was NO different than Jeckyll's, other than being given more disturbing things to say. In any event, kudos to Julia Roberts for going "outside-the-box" in this role. Perhaps her role in "Michael Collins" came close to this, with a similarly subdued performance, including the accent. The main theme of the movie is of course well-known to fans of Stevenson's work, and my only complaint here is I wish the screenwriters had gone a little deeper with Malkovich's character, and given him a few more lines and a little more screen time by himself, to explore the timeless theme of good and evil within the heart of every man. A little less time dwelling on Julia Roberts face, and a little more with glimpses into Jeckyll's torment would have worked better.The costumes and sets to recreate Victorian London were well-done, though the squalor of the back streets and the forboding atmospheric fog were only given a small role in the film- and at times the interior lighting effects were at odds with the candle-light era: a bit too bright at times, when darkness, fog, and obscurity would not only have been more realistic, but more effective.The musical score, which totally escaped my attention the first time I saw this film, adds nicely to the tension leading up to Mary's discovery of Jeckyll's secret. It's an understated soundtrack, so you won't find yourself humming bars from it months later- but it clearly adds to the atmosphere of the film, and never detracts from a scene.The pacing of the movie is deliberately slow, and the violence brief, never gratuitous, and largely implied. But, at 108 minutes, I never felt the movie dragged unnecessarily. Just about right.I give "Mary Reilly" 3 stars overall. My measure of a movie's worth is whether I would watch it more than once, and whether it holds it's entertainment value after a number of years. In this respect, "Mary Reilly" comfortably measures up. Not a classic, but worth viewing.I'll take it over "Pretty Woman" anyday. Well, if I'm in the mood, anyway.....

2012-05-04 14:29:24

A sexy thriller that will grab you and take you into a world

of darkness. Of course you know that John Malkovich is a synical, sexy, and complicated character. Plus you have the ever talented Julia Roberts that plays a strong but quiet woman that is still haunted by the pasts of her drunken father. Well anyway the two combinations compliment eachother very well in a story filled with passion and deceit. It's a better retelling of the classic story of Jekyl and Hyde. END

2012-05-04 09:50:52

What do I like about this film?

I really like the fact that the film is told from Mary Reilly's pointof view. Not only hers, but everyone else's too, like the naiveservants, the furious Mrs. Faraday (the brothel mistress). Mary Reilly- the character - also has a disturbing, traumatizing background storyand at some point Mr. Hyde gives a pretty heavy psychological spin onit. It's never elaborated on or seems ignored even, but this suits thetone of the film. Insinuating things often hits harder than explainingthem. Through some of the characters, some of the possible littlescript flaws (or plot holes) get solved. For instance, doesn't anybodynotice that Dr. Jekyll and his assistant Mr. Hyde look very much alike?Only Hyde looks younger. Sure people notice this, but one of theservants goes about assuming that Mr. Hyde might very well be a productof Jekyll's student days. As a bright student, Jekyll was popular withthe ladies. And since Jekyll never got married, if he would have had ason... in those days it was even a sin to merely speak about or suggesta thing like this.I like John Malkovich's performance a lot and it's clear that him &Stephen Frears both understood very well what they wanted to achievehere. The good doc Jekyll (whom is looked upon in high regards by hisservants) is far from kosher to the bone himself (we get hints at howhe conducts his research and we know he's a regular client at Mrs.Faraday's house of pleasure). While on the other hand, Mr. Hyde as thesavage beast, has his scarce moments of weakness for Mary Reilly. Seewhat I'm getting at? And when looking at it from Mary's side, sheunwillingly brings out the worst in the best, and the best in theworst, so to speak. Frears & Malkovich and screenwriter ChristopherHampton added shades of gray to a classic, one too many times toldstory that is basically just about black & white. The film got mereally interested in reading the source novel it was based on. To seehow it compares the film.What else is there to like? Enough, I think. Phillipe Rousselot'swonderful cinematography. A captivating musical score by GeorgeStenton. As much as it's a character-driven story, it does feature ahandful moments of the grotesque. Glenn Close gets decapitated. Dr.Jekyll is seen on the street repeatedly kicking a little girl in thestomach. An engrossing scene that shows how slaughtered meat forconsumption is being traded in the streets, followed by an analogytowards the trade of human organs for the sake of science. Not surewhom all were responsible for these sequences -- I understand thatFrears, for example, never intended the film to end like it did, withthat climactic transformation sequence. But said sequences are agraphic reminder of the fact that we are watching a horrific story. Atany rate, I didn't think they hurt the film. They injected it with thenecessary dosage of brutality.The set design is marvelous and Dr. Jekyll's laboratory - or at leastthe way of getting there - is cleverly structured (as it helps craftingthe suspense of a certain scene in a brilliant manner). The 19thcentury London setting works convincing, but we don't get to see muchof it. The blocking & framing makes sure we usually only see one partof a street at a time. And to add to this claustrophobic & dark notionthis film has, most scenes take place on indoors sets. But also thesesets are put to great use. To Mary Reilly, the doctor's mansion startsoff as a safe haven, a place offering a good job and a possible betterfuture. But it doesn't take long for this house to get infested withthe evil of Mr. Hyde's presence at night. So much even, that it startsto haunt her dreams. This shift in tone happens gradually, with a slowbut impeccable pace.Truth be told, to me Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde always seemed a verysimplistic story to tell. At least in the classic version as it gotfamous. It's good source material, yes, but Frears & Hampton managed tosqueeze a much more interesting film out of it. Which probably couldhave even been a lot better if the producing studio at the time wasn'tso concerned about how it would do at the box office.Voilà, that's it for what I like about this film.Notice that I didn't mention Julia Roberts' performance. It's verydown-toned, as it should be. She is there not to be noticed, hercharacter demands it and so does the story. And while she does have alot of screen time, she doesn't do much, so there's just not much tosay about her acting. But you can always 'see' the wheels of hercharacter's thoughts grinding, as she is the only one who's trying tofathom what's going on. From all the servants, she's the only one thatknows how to read. Dr. Jekyll discovers this very early on, when hespots her reading a book in his library. This, of course, titillatesthe good doc's mind. And that's the point in the film, as soon as itcomes, where you instantly realize this is going to take a turn for theworse. In that moment, there's a harmless thing between them that willinevitably unleash unspeakable horrors. And this 'harmless thing' evenis personified throughout the whole film. It goes by the name of MaryReilly.A very interesting adaptation. And a good film, full stop.

matt r 2012-05-03 02:58:18

suspense is overrated

This is my favorite Horror/Drama, it has everything I look for in a goodhorror movie. It's gothic and mysterious, with the best cast possible. If youwant a great horror story put to life, and if you prefer story over shock,this is your movie. Not that this movie doesn't have suspense, it just doesn'thave mindless zombies hacking at teenagers..

rhoda 2012-05-02 18:28:09

Jekyl and Hyde favorite

This dark story catches your eye and holds it through the whole movies from begining to end. Julia Roberts waif-like manner is perfect for this role. John Malkovich and Julia Roberts have strong directing, and the movie flows with gripping attention that shows the dark side to all of us.

MarieGabrielle 2012-04-25 15:22:27

This film gets better as you watch it

Initially, I stayed away from this movie as it received mercilessreviews. The fact that Julia Roberts was in it also was anotherobstacle. Yet as other reviewers have mentioned, she actually gives agood performance. John Malkovich is excellent as the tormentedJekyll/Hyde character.The cinematography and moods are haunting. One feels they are actuallyre-living the Victorian era, where the servants woke up at 4AM tocomplete their drudgery. The kitchen conjures up the stark realities ofsurvival, the eel that is chopped up for dinner (while alive) MaryReilly turns white as a sheet as she sees the animal die. I actuallybegan to appreciate Ms. Roberts' performances more after this film(also in films like "Mona Lisa Smile", she projects a certainbelievability; is not just a physical presence). At one point, there isa most effective scene wherein Roberts must see to her mother's burial,and goes to the tenement to make arrangements. The landlord has placedher mother's body in a damp cellar closet, saying she is "mostcomfortable" as he hands her one shilling, the only money Roberts willinherit. Roberts then says; ..."ä poor wage for a lifetime ofdrudgery"... We are reminded of the workhouses of Dickens, and therigid class structures which she must survive...While the dialect is at times choppy, she is believable as an Irishmaid; and the supporting cast also lends credence to this story.Malkovich varies his performance between Jekyll/Hyde, and it iseffective and visceral.If you initially avoided this film, I would highly recommend seeing itnow. The atmosphere and music are haunting and sad. 9/10

B.Carter 2012-04-25 10:38:07

Which part of whose anatomy did this get pulled out of?

This is one of the most baffling movies... I paid the full $7.50 to see itknowing it wasn't going to be the best... but Hey! John Malkovich... youknow... how bad can it be?... ...I was utterly stunned by the degree of ineptness Julia Roberts displayedinwhat was obviously supposed to be her vehicle. Malkovich is thoroughlyuninspired and under-used, but you can't blame everything on thedirector...he probably could have tried harder... or at all.I spent a good two or so days trying to forget this movie ever existed butit remains to this day...and I still want my 7.50 back

the_other_kinsey_institute 2012-04-21 04:53:35

Read the Original first!

I really did not appreciate this movie until I read the original RobertLouis Stevenson book, and now I adore this movie. I remember beingcompletely confused when I first watched this movie (particularly at thescene where Hyde stomps the little girl and then pays her family off),whichmakes much more sense if you know the original story well.

The_Void 2012-04-20 13:25:00

Lacklustre attempt to make a different version of Jekyll and Hyde!

Mary Reilly offers a new spin on Robert Louis Stevenson's classic novel"The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde", and in that respect; thisreally should have been a lot better. In fact, whichever way you lookat it; this should have been a better film. The story of Dr Jekyll andMr Hyde is a great base for a story, and it's shocking to see that thisis all that could be mustered. I don't know if Valerie Martin's novelis any better; but given the fact that a film was made of it, I'minclined to think that it is. The film sees the shocking transformationof Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde from the point of view of the good doctor'smaid, who just so happens to be called Mary Reilly. This is interestingbecause is shows the story we already know from a differentperspective, thus giving it new life; but it loses so much in terms ofthe focus of the actual story; things such as the reasons for theexperiments, and the crimes committed by Mr Hyde aren't touched on atall, and that means that any interest generated by change ofperspective is swiftly cancelled out.The film stars Julia Roberts, who takes the lead role. It's not a goodperformance from her; the atmosphere around her gives the impressionthat she's either uncomfortable or bored (or both), and that ensuresthat she's never much fun to watch. The usually brilliant JohnMalkovich takes the double role of Dr Jekyll and his alter ego, andeven he fails to make an interesting go of it. He's this film's biggestasset - but his performance loses credibility due to the fact that MrHyde is OBVIOUSLY the same person as Dr Jekyll! The fact that it'sbased on a story we all know doesn't help the film where the plottingis concerned. The audience knows that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde aredifferent versions of the same man - and that means we are left waitingfor the characters to catch up. Mary Reilly makes this dramatic ironyit's centrepiece, and it's not a good move as any intrigue is killedbefore it has chance to get off the ground. To be fair, the film does afew good moments of suspense - but these are few and far between, andall I can recommend doing with this film is missing it, and seeingeither Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 classic, or the hilarious Hammer take;Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde!

2012-04-19 10:19:52

This J & H Doesn't Finish in the Money

Not a bad movie; just not a very good one. This serving girl centered version of the Jekyll and Hyde version just doesn't make it. When you have a tradition which includes Barrymore, March and Tracy, to mention only the best known of the genre, you have class acts to live up to: this one doesn't make out. Its a pallid reorientation from J&H to the maid servant and it just doesn't work very well. Much of the time, Julia Roberts, the maid servant does what no maid servant would do and doesn't do what most maid servants would do. Much of the time, also, she is made so unglamorous, that it is difficult to understand just why both J & H fall for her. As to the lead role, little horror, little disgust and fear, are generated by the quite unmonsterlike Hyde.All-in- all, a decent but not enticing film.

Paetra 2012-04-19 07:12:18

I've seen better

I made the mistake of seeing the movie before finishing the book. I can't say I hated the movie but I personally thought Julia Roberts was miss casted, as was glen close in her bit role. Julia did a poor job of attempting an accent and in trying to seem timid she came off stiff. Malkovich did a poor job as Jekyll but I rather liked him as Hyde. Unfortunatley the screenwriters tried to sex up the movie, so in all it's quite another story than the novel. in all it's very slow since it tries to bring the novels psychologically based themes to the screen and only interests a select few. if you want to watch it borrow it from the library 'cause it's not worth your money.

SabbyGrl 2012-04-17 04:10:00

Julia Roberts Best Acting in this dark film

Julia Roberts who plays the title role carries the film in a slow,darkly driven character study of good vs evil, and in a way love. JuliaRoberts has never been better, even in her Oscar winning role. Shereally gives a very thoughtful, quiet and subtle performance that isthe strongest thing about the film. While Stephen Fears gives his besttry by creating this bleak, mysterious world , the film itself getscarried away with in itself and can at moments be over the top. Theperformance of Malcovich is pretty unbelievable and totally underactedin typical Malcovich style which drags the film down. But Robertsperformance is great , even for those who are not fans of the actress,this serious turn is well done.

2012-04-16 09:35:57

A Twist on the Classic Horror Film

This movie has an interesting twist on the classic horror film. We are able to watch what transpires within the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from the view of a chambermaid's perspective. This chambermaid, Mary Reilly, is played quite well by Julia Roberts. Mary Reilly is a poor girl who had a horrible childhood and feels the safety of security brought about by working in the house of a rich and distinguished doctor. Of course unlike normal servants of the time, she is able to read and becomes very inquisitive about her masters business. Mr. John Malkovich does a perfect job of showing the ongoing conflict between good and evil contained within each of us in his portrayal of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. As the good doctor he is a kindly man of science. But as Mr. Hyde all his inhabitations are gone, as are his morals and conscience.This film takes the horror film and turns into a film that keeps you suspended in the dark as you watch the mystery unfold for the chambermaid. The movie is not a true classic horror film or one of the modern films of gore. Do not expect to be frighten and do not be surprised when the audience seems to be the only ones that can see it is obvious that Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde. Other then that, both leads give a satisfactory performance and the film is worth watching.

evabbs 2012-04-15 13:41:24

Julia Roberts in a horror? Better than you think

I thought it was actually a very good film. I didnt realise when I startedwatching it that it would be so graphic, I never thought of Roberts doingaPeriod Horror, and she does better than i would have thought... althoughtheaccent is a bit dodgy at times. John is excellent- a very scaryHyde/Jekkel!Glenn Close makes a scarely good whore mistress!all in all a good film well worth watching!

fuzzyfeller 2012-04-15 00:26:48

Julia with an Irish accent(that spells bomb)

Im watching this movie as I type and so far it is rather dull.Set inEdinburgh Scotland in the 1800's -This is not the story of Dr Jekyll/MrHydeas you would expect ,its more a plodding story of heresay conversationsbetween the servants,and various other people and Julia Roberts(Reilly)whowants to know more about Dr Jekyll. Even the scenes betweenMalkovich(Jekyll) and Roberts(Reilly) are dull.A very pasty lesbian looking Julia Roberts in a serious role as a maidwitha bad Irish accent just does not work. She is just so unconvincing and herfake accent is so bad,regardless the movie is dull and it wouldnt havemattered who took the role of Mary ,I'm surprised so many people havelikedit on here ,it bombed at the box office and I wasnt going to waste moneyonit. Im glad I didnt.I would recommend avoiding this borefest and see one of her bettermovies.