Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: Passable adaptation

[Platypuschow · 6/10 · 5 December 2018]

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

Tries to be different, which does not work out well for the story.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 5/10 · 23 September 2006]

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/

An old tale, bang up to date!

[RatedVforVinny · 7/10 · 11 December 2019]

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.

Flawless

[RG4CA · 19 October 2003]

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.

What is the point of another version so inaccurate?

[mleeper · 4/10 · 20 October 2003]

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.")

Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Id.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 26 August 2017]

It's a well-known story, the kind that made most sense during England's Victorian period. An innocent and respectable man somehow lets his savage unconscious loose and pays for it in the end. Dorian Gray served the same purpose for Oscar Wilde in "The Portrait of Dorian Gray." It took Freud to explain it to the public.

This version of Jeykll and Hyde departs considerably from the novella as I remember it from years ago. All of the filmed versions do to some extent but this one is at the farthest remove.

As Jeykll/Hyde, John Hannah gives it everything he's got but is somewhat undone by a confusing script that wanders around and covers not just gauche behavior -- stomping little girls on the street and erratic almost to the point of being presidential -- but several murders, purposeful in that Jeykll or Hyde is intentionally committing them, not just in a fit of pique, but to preserve the secrecy surrounding his, er, peculiar problem.

There's no make up involved in the transition from one persona to another. Sometimes, as when angrily confronting the politically ambitious Sir Danvers Carew, one is reminded of the anecdote about the snooty critic taken to see one of the early films of the story and being told that the actor was playing the principal part. "I see. Which one is he now?" Then again, there are times when Hyde actually appears on screen opposite Jeykll and the two argue, with Hannah's Hyde sneering and ranting while Hannah's Jeykll cowers in the corner.

If you can forget about the stark original and bull your way through the obfuscating obstacles, it's still a pretty good story. At least there are whores involved instead of Spencer Tray's show girls.

Not the shocking film it tries to be

[Robodok · 4/10 · 6 January 2008]

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.

Wonderful adaptation of the novel

[goebelhe · 10/10 · 29 October 2003]

I have seen one of the Jekyll-and-Hyde films so far. But this one is much better since it shows Hyde as he was described in the novel: as a person that seems different looking although there is no obvious malformation present (like it was overdone in the "League of the extraordinary gentlemen" and also in the movie from 1931). John Hannah demonstrates perfectly here that the evil does not have to be connected to a horrible look. He did a great job working out the psychological dark side of this tragic figure. The changes from Jekyll to Hyde were brilliantly filmed. For everybody who is interested in the novel this film is certainly a must-see.

"I'm not Dr Jekyll. I'm Mr Hyde!"

[sophie_lou21 · 10/10 · 24 March 2006]

A shorter comment then usual: Since it's release in the scandalise period of the Victorian era, Robert Louis Stevenson's novel DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE has been a chief member of the classic horror monster stories. Along with Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, Mr Hyde joins the nightmare monsters that you wouldn't want to run into alone at the witching hour. Of course, after so many remade versions and far too many endless remakes, the world is all too aware who Mr Hyde is, and has gradually become a parody of itself.

DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE (2003) here is the best version so far as it takes the book and expands it in a way that it matches and in some cases, out does the original story. Bringing horror, fear and yet complete pity for Dr Jekyll into the equation, this film is hands down the best adaptation of the book. John Hannah (Sliding Doors, The Mummy and Four Wedding and a Funeral) plays Dr Jekyll, the young, kind, thoughtful and yet distressed doctor who finds himself a victim to his own desire to separate good from evil. Hannah is Dr Jekyll as much as Dr Jekyll is Mr Hyde. The way that John Hannah was able to show the split personality of the troubled doctor is amazing and Jekyll's slow decent into madness. While his appearance doesn't change, a darker side of Dr Jekyll in the form of Mr Hyde takes control and Jekyll is unable to stop it. His useless attempts to convince himself that it was Hyde, and not him that commits the crimes makes you pity him and feel for him all the more, the fact that he doesn't realise he is Mr Hyde.

I urge everyone who had read the book or is a fan of the classical horror genre track this down on DVD and watch it. It's a treat to see an original and un-clichéd version of this classic horror thriller.

A great film.

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 10/10 · 23 March 2016]

This movie is very scary. 5.7 is just underrating. This is movie that will make your hairs stand on end. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It is based on one of the best book ever. And it is one of the best movie ever. Doctor Jekyll try to get ride of his evil self. But this evil self his taking him over. This is a great horror story. Brian Pettifer is a great actor. John Hannah is great actor. He is very scary in this movie. Maurice Phillips is a great director. See this movie. This movie is a must see. Gerard Horan is a great actor. This movie is a great. See it.

Stunning Christian Film

[scathbeorh · 10/10 · 4 August 2016]

The acting is superb, the story-line flawless, the filming beautiful and creepy. This is a 'sleeper,' and, sad to say, one which was made for television and not wide release. But any die-hard fan of Horror or Mystery can't afford to let this one go by the wayside.

Think you know already the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde? I thought I did as well, and went into the film with an incredulous, nothing-else-to-watch attitude. But, as happens on occasion, my bad attitude was rewarded with surprise after surprise, and with an ending to this masterpiece that was/is deeply consoling and faith-building (to say the least).

Plenty of bloodshed, classic British 'Dickensian' actors, prostitution, mob violence, brooding introspection, blackmail, self-licking lollipops, and the love of a wonderful Christian girl who should be, because of her circumstances, a hardened, angry person incapable of any feeling whatever.

Don't miss this one!

Great Movie

[Steven1929 · 10/10 · 9 June 2018]

Besides several pessimistic comments I really liked this movie. The materials like costumes and everything else in the movie appeared to be extortionate and very impressive. They were very genuine and intriguing explicitly visual components such as lighting, artistic figures and other sequences makes audiences feel the story as they are going through it themselves. Therefore it could be said the movie director and producer have achieved what they have aimed from the beginning. Which I consider this should be every movie director's and producer's ultimate intention in the first place.