Jekyll + Hyde (2006 Video) User Reviews

boring and over-pretentious - only the music is scary!!

[johannes2000-1 · 3/10 · 3 March 2007]

The story of Jekyll and Hyde was of course used for movies like a zillion times, so a director that takes up this worn-out theme should think twice about what he can add to all the others. I wonder if this director thought even ONCE, for this version didn't bring anything new whatsoever (apart from a 21th century make-over), I thought it even worse, to be honest. Whereas the classic interpretations (and of course the novel itself) show us the inner turmoil of an ambitious scientist, here we just see a dull and sulky student (okay, VERY good-looking, I grant him that!), stuffing himself with a self-made drug and blabbering into his camcorder from time to time how it effects him. This goes on and on until the end, and we never get any good reason or motivation.

The movie is wavering between a psychological thriller and a horror-flick, and as a result it turns out as neither. For a horror-movie it's too boring, apart from some creepy music (quite good, by the way!), all the exciting things that could help to enliven the movie (like witnessing the brutal murders of Hyde) take place outside the range of the camera. Furthermore it badly lacked an involving storyline, because nothing much really happens.

And then there were many illogical inconsistencies. How could Jay keep up his work as a medical student, while raving night after night? Where did he get the money that he so obviously and lavishly spent when he was Hyde? How come none of his friends ever met him during these Hyde-outings, the "Hyde-effect" didn't change his appearance at all (apart from the obvious dropping of his glasses). And what happens to all the bodies that he supposedly leaves after him throughout town, doesn't the police do anything?? There's even a body in his bath-tub that he (again out of our sight) approaches with some kind of acid. Are we to believe that this makes a body evaporate into thin air? And how can he build up and maintain a complete drugs-lab in a building that's obviously under construction so where working-men should walk forever in and out?? Even the ending is dumb. His (ex-)girlfriend and his professor wander for some 15 tedious minutes through the building (the one that's under construction, but not one construction-worker is in sight, although it's the middle of the day) before finding that Jay just killed himself – there goes your climactic finale!! Strangely enough, the suicide by blowing his brains out is shown in total close-up and is even repeated two or three times, as if the director wanted to make up for not showing any other violence in the movie.

In conclusion, this movie is over-pretentious, totally superfluous and a waste of Bree Turner, who's not only very good-looking but also a fairly good actress.

not the greatest

[wrlang · 3/10 · 8 November 2006]

Jekyll + Hyde is about a young college student that experiments with drugs and winds up creating a potion that allows him to change his personality and appearance. It also shortens his temper and prompts him to do bad things like kill and torture people. Jekyll isn't much better than Hyde in this remake. This is a pretty close take off on the original plot, but its not mediocre acting. It just didn't come across as a believable story. The plot was good and the dialog was passable, but the execution of the scenes came across as hollow and a little false. There were some entertaining parts and the cinematography was good.

This movie doesn't work at all

[TdSmth5 · 4/10 · 9 May 2008]

This movie has great production values, good acting, a good idea behind the script, and competent crew, yet it fails at being in any way interesting or entertaining. The problem is how the story is told. Rather than go with a straightforward timeline, they mixed present and past and added a voice-over that provides some philosophical musings. The basic story is of course Jeckyl and Hyde: 2 personalities in one person, one good, one bad. The twist here is that the transformation is achieved here by a medical student looking for some breakthrough medication by experimenting with illicit drugs. The main character is established as a good guy only in a few scenes, most of the movie he spends as a bad guy, and he sure gets bad. Some of the scenes would be classified as "torture porn" by some, but in this case the victims are mostly males for some reason. Another sleazy character provides the drugs. Then there's the mandatory loving girl, who's interested in our JH for no reason and goes out of her way to care for him. Another friend gets to be the nice guy who gets bullied. There is not one character to care for. There's some gore and violence, a little bit of nudity of a corpse. Nothing that would make this movie worthwhile. Overall, for a horror movie this is rather tame and lame, slow-going and uninteresting.

Thoroughly pointless

[info-5111 · 2/10 · 10 July 2006]

Jekyll is alive and well and is studying medicine in the States. He is a nerdy character who experiments in illegal substances that might enhance his self esteem and, mayhap, "improve mankind". But before this lame nonsense is explained to us, we are at least treated to a prologue with some sense of dread and mystery. Then it all goes downhill.

This lumbering adaptation of Stevenson's classic tale of human duality lacks everything that might make it worth any viewer's while, I'm sorry to report. Insofar it's been "modernized", it has been so in such a simplistic manner that the original seems more ... modern, if you will. The elements of horror have all the stupidity of a Friday 13 movie, but virtually none of the shlocky effects that might entertain some (even me, on some days). This movie offers nothing new and the old stuff is presented in a weak and confused manner.

My guess is that somewhere along the line all those involved must have realized that their movie is a dead end, but somehow managed to shoot enough footage to reach its humble length, thus being able to say "we've made a feature film" and then hope that no one actually sees it.

C is for Crap

[Diaboliqa666 · 2/10 · 13 October 2006]

So, to start things off I must say I am a purist at heart and strongly believe that if you are going to make/remake a beloved story you should try to stay as faithful to it as possible, otherwise it's a big F U to the person who wrote it and those who love it, basically you are saying "I could do this soooo much better than you" and in this case they were so completely and utterly wrong.

The basic plot sounded OK - nerd hates being nerd, uses his nerd super powers in a chemical lab to make a magical drug that changes nerds personality into cool guys personality, but something goes wrong. A step away from the original idea I know, but hey they may have been able to update it and do it better....WRONG!!! The only part of this movie that even remotely stayed true to the original tale is the "there was something wrong with the drugs you got me" section. In the original story the purity of the drugs needed by Jekyll can not be found and he chucks a bit of a wobbly.

The idea behind the story of Jekyll and Hyde is the monstrous other inside all people. Hyde is the complete opposite to Jekyll, this much they got right - but Hyde is supposed to be a twisted freak, he looks evil because he is evil, he kills when the opportunity arrives, he doesn't seek out victims, he is unarticulated and slightly slow, and I really can't remember him being all that sexually active because every time someone sees him their blood runs cool. The idea of the tale is that every human has a balance of good evil, if you try and bring out one side over the other the opposite side withers. Jekyll becomes weak and cannot change back, it is not completely his dependence on drugs that makes him revert to Hyde constantly it is Hyde's increased strength brought about by over flexing of the evil side of the personality.

This movie is a travesty. It takes a rather intelligent investigation of the human personality/soul (written before psychology was as popular as it is today - in-fact I don't think it existed at the time) and turned into a party drug induced attempt at a slasher movie. The atmosphere is horrible, you spend about half an hour of the ending in complete blackness. You don't get any idea of a linear story line, Jekyll / Hyde shows flashes of memory of doing horrible things, but they last for two seconds and there is no explanation for any of it at all. It is marketed, I am guessing, as a slasher movie but doesn't contain enough blood to fit the category. The Director tried to be to artsy and it just comes off as badly planned, poorly written with an ending slapped on at the last minute. And, most objectionable of all, they turned it into a bloody love story. Jekyll and Hyde has no place for love, it has nothing to do with love, it has to do with good and evil, mad scientists and what can happen to you if you mess with the divine balance.

THIS MOVIE SUCKS.

Thank you for your time.

If the people who made this thing clearly aren't excited about it, why should anyone else be?

[MBunge · 3/10 · 28 August 2010]

I've been bored by movies before, but this is the first time I've ever watched a movie that's bored with itself.

As yet another version of the classic story (which the film itself specifically notes), this time around it concerns medical students who make and use their own party drugs. Henry "J" Jekyll (Bryan Fisher) is one of the students who tries to create a personality-altering drug, ends up unleashing a violent persona who calls himself Hyde and yadda, yadda, yadda, you know how the story goes.

At least you'd better know how it goes, because this movie isn't at all interested in telling the actual story. It doesn't tell much of any story. If you had somehow never heard of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde before, you'd have virtually no clue as to what this movie is trying to do because most of that tale is missing. The elemental struggle of man against his darker self is only briefly and shallowly touched upon. Most of that conflict, the essential nature of the Jekyll/Hyde story, is left off the screen. It's as though the audience is supposed to just fill it in on their own as they watch.

What we do get is what seems like an entire film made up of deleted scenes, all the stuff that wasn't very good, wasn't really necessary or didn't really contribute to the plot. The best way I can describe this movie is to ask you to imagine some making a 5 hour long Jekyll and Hyde movie. Now imagine them editing the weakest and least interesting 97 minutes out of that film. Now imagine the original video got destroyed and they had to go back and splice together that 97 minutes of cut footage to try and make a movie out of that.

The people who made this film also apparently know how to shoot a movie but don't know the meaning of anything they do. For example, throughout the film there moments when we're shown a scary door. The door keeps showing up and we keep moving closer and closer to it. The idea clearly is to create some dramatic tension – What is the door? Where is it? What does it mean? What's on the other side? But when we finally get to the door in the story, not only is it just a door and not only is there nothing really interesting on the other side, but the movie actually shows us everything on the other side before we get to door. The door is opened and it's just the stuff we've been watching for the last 15 minutes. It's like a game show where they show you what's behind Curtain # 3…and then ask you to guess what's behind Curtain #3.

The acting in this movie is okay, given that no one's ever really has to be much more than standard horror movie cannon fodder. Bryan Fisher, though, really fails with one of the naturally great roles in fiction. Not only is his Jekyll nothing more than a cliché, but his Hyde is a joke. Mr. Hyde is supposed to be savage, threatening and monstrous. Fisher's Hyde is like a 20-something douchebag who's watched too many John Woo movies.

The only redeeming feature in this story is that it suggests interpreting the Jekyll/Hyde dynamic in terms of the modern understanding of addiction - Jekyll being a junkie and Hyde being the high he's desperately chasing. But other than having a character specifically refer to that idea out loud, nothing ever comes of it.

Jekyll+Hyde isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it might be the most pointless. The filmmakers were clearly bored with just telling another version of the story, didn't have anything new or different to add to it, but still went ahead with making the movie anyway.

I volunteer myself to make rifftrax for this movie

[glitterygothic · 7 August 2011]

My goodness gracious! What a train wreck of a film! Actually? I might want to retract that statement. I feel like calling this movie a train wreck is the film review equivalent of kicking an abused puppy. To call it a train wreck is to imply that there is anything to actually wreck. Well, there is the source material. I would be really saddened if this was someone's first exposure to the Jekyll and Hyde story, and had the story ruined for them! Okay, so this movie does deserve to be torn apart. Just a little.

There are a lot of really awful adaptations of the Jekyll and Hyde story out there. A LOT. But as a big fan of the story, I can usually find one or two things in an otherwise steaming pile of crap to point out and say, "Well, at least this was decent." Can't do that with this film here! The writing is hilariously bland, the editing has multiple personality disorder (probably the most Jekyll and Hyde thing about the film, actually), and the actor who plays Jekyll looks like he's about to fall asleep whenever he talks.

What really impressed me is how dorky they managed to make Mr. Hyde! Most adaptations can manage at least one "cool" scene for Hyde--I mean, really, he IS supposed to be the "fun" part of adapting the story. But not Jekyll+Hyde! Presumably due to budget problems, 90% of Hyde's evilness (i.e. murdering people for no clear reason) is performed offscreen.

What dastardly deeds DOES he perform on-screen? He buys an under-21 girl alcohol, and then suggests that they might engage in sexual relations! In later scenes, he has consensual sex with another woman! Good heavens!

Now granted, this DOES fall under "so bad it's hilarious" territory, so if that's what you're looking for (as I was), go ahead and give it a shot! But honestly? It's almost too bland to even find it's lameless entertaining. If you want a hilariously bad Jekyll and Hyde story, I suggest looking up the David Hasselhoff version of the Jekyll and Hyde stage musical ("It's Phantom-lite!"). Or, for a better modern adaptation with a charmingly over-the-top Hyde? Check out Steven Moffat's "Jekyll" from BBC!

Jekyll nerdette OUT!

Not even close

[petra-59 · 3/10 · 7 October 2006]

The DVD cover actually mentions Robert Louis Stevenson. But that does him no favours. Even the title isn't quite right. And the film is completely wrong. It has nothing to do with the original idea of a man trying to separate his good side from his evil side, and who finds that, even without the potion, his evil side starts to predominate. What we have in this film is students who drink and take drugs and think that sex is just for fun. And poor little J is a wimp or a nerd or just plain shy. So he takes his pills and experiments and finds that he really likes being an animal, with no conscience. And with sudden explosions and flashbacks,the film staggers on for about 85 minutes before coming to an obvious end. And poor RLS thinks: "I didn't write that rubbish, surely." No, sir you didn't. And those who did, shouldn't have.

Jekyll + Hyde lacks individuality.

[BA_Harrison · 5/10 · 28 December 2013]

Meek medical student Henry 'J' Jekyll (Bryan Fisher) is fed up with coming 'second place in life' and so develops a drug that increases his confidence and sexual attraction but which also unleashes uncontrollable violent tendencies.

I'm in two minds about this modern spin on the classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale: on one hand, it's a competently written, highly polished effort that features solid performances and succeeds in being suitably disturbing at times; on the other, it lacks genuine soul, director Nick Stillwell trying so hard to impress with his technical prowess that he has forgotten that sometimes less is more, and that one true innovation is worth a hundred tried and tested film-making techniques.

It's also good to remember that a couple of likable characters can go a long way (it's hard to empathise with any of this film's shallow, over-privileged, drug-taking douche-bags), and that an overuse of emotional pop songs on the soundtrack makes potentially powerful scenes seem like something out of Dawson's Creek.

pretty good movie overall

[biggin101 · 7/10 · 30 July 2006]

Saw this one the other night. Honestly,I have never seen or heard of it before. But was delighted at the acting and the storyline. Some of the scenes get pretty intense,and every now and then the story kinda goes off to never never land. But all in all this was and is a great movie to see. Not sure if its "Theater" quality but definitely worth seeing. Most of the stars I have never heard of before,but the cast did a really great job. Biggest issue I have with this movie is the beginning. I won't elaborate anymore ,you will figure it out. Its a bit slow at times,but trust me,its worth the wait.

A bit of T@A in it,just enough to make it presentable. Also a lot of the "effects" are pretty good and believable..

Jekyll + Hyde

[Scarecrow-88 · 5/10 · 14 July 2007]

"Someone once said evil is the ultimate temptation. What's so terrifying is that it's within us all. If you let it, like a cancer it will consume you."

Medical student Jekyll(Bryan Fisher)has been tampering experimentally using existing elements from the drug Ecstasy hoping to create an elaborate pill that can shift your personality..he says for the better. What happens, however, is that in using the drug himself by ingestion this dominant predatory personality of "Hyde" emerges killing those friends..and especially female sexual companions..he once frequented with before starting the intake. The cause of trying these experiments, anyway, was so that he could break free from his timid nerdy shell. When he becomes more aggressive and winsome with the ladies turning into some sort of GQ model with violent tendencies, "J" is hooked to that personality until he's unable to resist Hyde..the good that was Jekyll is being eradicated by Hyde. The addiction kicks in and when "J" receives some "infected" chemicals to make his drug from pal Lanyon(Jeff Roop)Hyde begins to emerge at any moment making it incredibly hard for Jekyll to hold the monster at bay. Jekyll is in love with Martha(Bree Turner)who would take "J" as her lover even if he remained the geek he was. As Hyde, she's quite attracted as he makes the moves Jekyll never would..not to mention, Hyde is quite good in bed which she shows with such enthusiasm in a sex scene. Other friends targeted by Hyde..Dan(Zachary Bennett), someone Hyde hates because it reminds him of Jekyll who also carries a torch for Martha and Josh(Adam MacDonald), a cousin to Bree who is good drug pals with Lanyon. The incident that rattles the cycle of Hyde's emergence and Jekyll's decision to begin rapid intake of his experimental drug was the OD of a close friend to Bree and the rest, Mary(Katrina Matthews).

Good production values and a very serious tone show that this was quite a professionally made product with everyone trying to create a legitimate work worthy of praise. For me it moves at a rather slow pace never quite delivering the thrills a premise like this could easily deliver. At times the flick wishes to be naughty such as the various sexual escapades and some nudity, but the flick is more about the evils that overtake the good souls hoping to create something of worth, seduced by allure of sin. The actors try to etch out vivid characterizations such as Fisher, who I felt really doesn't have quite the range for such a complex role.

Pretty cool actually

[jayne1207 · 9/10 · 24 July 2006]

Sat down and watched this last night with a couple of friends.Had to go back and watch a couple of scenes again - one due to being scared and one cos my friend fancied the lead!!!!

I wasn't expecting that much from it but really enjoyed it - Better than half the sh1t i've seen at the movies this summer!!

Its a cool new take on a story that we all know by now (when will they come up with new ideas?) but its less of the slasher horror and more of a thriller - Acting was really good, especially liked seeing Bree Turner from "Just My Luck" as a lead.

There are a couple of really sick scenes which I won't spoil on here (though I bet someone does) and some cool music throughout - overall I rate it a nine out of 10

Not really horror, but not bad

[galensaysyes · 7/10 · 22 November 2008]

First things first: this is not a modern retelling of the Stevenson story, no matter what the blurb on the case claims. It's a different story in the same line, with characters who happen to be named the same as Stevenson's. Also, it isn't truly a horror story, but a dramatized sermon disguised as such. I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was produced by a church. It contains no mention of God (except in vain) or of doctrine, but it's an elaborate illustration of a moral, which is actually stated aloud at the end: evil exists in all of us. The specific moral message delivered, if any, can only be: don't mess with drugs.

In spite of or because of this, it isn't a bad movie. The director (or someone covering for him) shows one overriding talent: an ability to hold the interest; and that, in spite of making just about every mistake in the book. Take the first scene, where a character discovers a dead body. Instead of our discovering it at the same time he does, we get a series of cutaways from different angles, none of them from anyone's point of view; these take us out of the scene entirely. In other scenes, at points where it would become necessary to build suspense, or to pay it off, the director seems to have no confidence of his being able to do that, so he just ends the scenes there. Throughout, he overlays a loud, rather arty musical score, which is appealing in its own right but usually incongruous with the dramatic action, and often drowns it out altogether.

The virtue of the director's that does the most to counterbalance faults like these is his skill in getting good performances out of actors. Apart from the movie's leading lady, a producer's-girlfriend type, the cast all come off well. The leading man is perhaps a little callow, but perhaps that was part of the point.

The one important skill the director apparently lacks is the ability to create a solid script, or the judgment to recognize one. This one has playable scenes, but doesn't move right. It jerks around in time, never makes its chronology clear, telegraphs the ending at the beginning, and constantly cuts away from scenes just as they become interesting. Moreover, it's sketchy about the characters' motivations--most notably, Hyde's--and the progressions of their relationships. It needed at least one more go-through.

But I expect that the director will soon move up to bigger productions, with tighter scripts, and once he has the legs to stand on, will show what he can really do.

Choose AIDS over this movie

[darnouk · 1/10 · 14 March 2010]

**READ THE WHOLE THING PLEASE**

First off let me start with the few good things I found in this movie. The main actors were pretty good, pretty realistic scenes, and it teaches the good moral that messing with drugs will ruin you.

Prepare yourself for the long list of bad things. First of all the actors were all so random but that doesn't bother me. The movie was soo goddamn slow! I ended up fastforwarding most of the movie. At least 30 minutes of this movie was nothing but slow bullshit. The other thing that really annoyed me is that they emphasized way to much on the characters drinking and taking drugs. For 20 minutes straight I wasted my life watching these actors take shots and pills in a bar while flirting with whores. At least 85% of this movie was nothing but actors in an extremely dark setting which really annoys me watching. The scene cuts as soon as it starts to get good. The beginning of the movie spoils the rest and leaves you thanking the questionably existing God that the movie actually has an ending. Most importantly you notice the only way the sick and twisted director even came close to the actual Stevenson plot line was the he mentioned the names Jekyll and Hyde. The director gives an effort to modernize the movie but he fails because he changed the plot too much. In addition to the rating they should provide the side effects of watching this movie which include but are not limited to: -inserting your genital areas into a mechanical pencil sharpener, -stapling your eyelids shut, -setting your TV on fire, -ingesting toxic amounts of antifreeze, -suffering a slow and painful death, -sudden urges to bathe in sewage, -developing brain tumor, -questioning the existence of god, -(somehow) obesity, -severe mental retardation, -suicide.

Overall the worst movie created, destroys the name of Stevenson's classic, and should be erased from the history of mankind so that when we die out aliens will acknowledge the existence of intellectual human beings and not retarded animals.

You need to get out in the big wide world and start mowing some new lawns.

[lastliberal · 4/10 · 15 May 2009]

Outside of Cindy (Robyn Palmer) riding hard on an autopsy table, there just wasn't much of interest in this film.

It would fit in nicely with Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign.

It was all about J (Bryan Fisher) using drugs to create a new personality. Well, you know what kind of personality he would get, don't you? He turns into Hyde. Surprise, surprise.

He then goes about raping and murdering. No, you don't get to see any of the raping action, just the murdering. His girlfriend (Bree Turner) is clueless as to what is going on and just jumps into the sack with him instead of trying to find out.

This had the potential to be a great horror film; instead it was something you might see in Sunday School class.

Decent concept, but terribly executed

[Daggyy · 2/10 · 2 July 2017]

We all know the classic of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, yet most film adaptations (that I'm aware of at least) are set in the era of the book. This version tries a different angle, in modern society and without such a drastic or supernatural change in Jekyll's being.

And that's pretty much all that is good about this film. The rest is just a bland mix of bad acting, shallow characters, illogical story devices, unnecessarily drawn out sequences, and bad filming. More than anything, this is an homage to Bryan Fisher's (Jekyll) ego, as it is basically just a showreel of his transformation from a depressed (and handsome) "nerd" to a narcissistic playboy, by only dropping his glasses and growing some stubble.

What kills this movie the most is just the lack of any depth to the characters, especially Jekyll (Fisher). He has about 3 lines prior to becoming Hyde, and gives no real reason for betraying his old life other than that he doesn't want to come in second anymore (which makes little sense in his case, as he is both smart and attractive to his crush), and to cure mankind of lame personalities.

Boring, not entertaining

[Finfrosk86 · 3/10 · 16 June 2015]

OK, I bought this pack with three, or four horror films in it. This was one of them. (The Nun, another horrible movie was another)

So, this movie has an alright budget, not too bad acting, but it is just so boring. I mean, almost nothing horror related happens at all. Not that I can remember anyway. There are some kills or something, but it's just not entertaining.

I think it is an attempt at making more of a "serious" movie, not an entertaining one. It's just not good. It will bore you.

I write this review just to warn others. If you are after some entertaining horror, look elsewhere! If you are looking for some kind of bland, sci-fi- thriller-drama thing, give it a try.

Modern Take on the Classic Novel That Falls Flat

[Reviews_of_the_Dead · 5/10 · 14 May 2020]

This was a film that I really didn't know much about, but I did pick up a copy of it on DVD a few years ago. That would be probably right after college when I was seeking out all of the versions of this classic tale from Robert Louis Stevenson to see how they all differed. Other than that, I knew very little. The synopsis here is Henry Jekyll (Bryan Fisher) is a young science student who along with his friend Mary (Katrina Matthews), experiments with various drugs and compounds in order to create a personality-enhancing drug.

Now that synopsis pretty much gets recapped in some opening text before we get into the movie. Henry 'J' Jekyll wakes up in his place and goes into the bathroom. It is there that he discovers a girl in his bathtub. He's not sure how she got there, but there's blood all over. To make matters worse, a fellow student Martha Utterson (Bree Turner) shows up to his apartment. He hasn't been to class all week so she's bringing him notes. He tries to rush her off, but not before she notices the blood on his clothes. She didn't see him strangle the girl in his bathtub before exiting.

The movie then informs us that we're going to go 2 weeks into the past. J is much different and quite nerdy from the looks. His group of friends includes Martha, Lanyon (Jeff Roop), Dan (Zachery Bennett) and Mary. Lanyon is kind of a douche if I'm going to be honest. He along with Mary, are really into recreational drugs. During this scene we get an odd interaction between J, Jack (Landy Cannon) and Martha. J gets bullied by Jack. This plays into the experiment that he wants to conduct in order to earn a grant.

Things take a turn though when Mary dies of an overdose. J's professor, Jane Poole (Maria del Mar) tries to sway him away from what he wants to do to something that is legal and more safe. He refuses though. He also starts to test what he has created on himself.

Before Mary passed away, she had a note in her locker for Hyde and what looked like a phone number. This is the persona that J is taking on while he uses this new drug he created. He keeps upping and upping the dose, until he's not sure who he is anymore. He is plagued by nightmares that he's starting to think are memories of what his alter ego is doing. The problem is, he likes being Hyde too much to stop.

I'm going to try my hardest here to not compare this version to some of the other ones that I've been watching recently. To start off with the positives here, I do like that this is one is taking the idea from the original novel and forming into a cautionary tale of addiction. I also think this an interesting aspect that he's documenting his experiment by doing video blogs. It is an easy way to show/tell us the information while giving us some different images on the screen. Incorporating the idea of recreational drug use, especially with college students makes sense.

The problem though that I did have with this movie is that it is too slow. It runs just under 90 minutes, but it felt like it went on for 2 hours. Something I think is the problem there is that pretty much all of the deaths are done off-screen and I have no idea why that was the route they decided to take. It almost feels like the story they're trying to tell they thought was strong enough to carry it and I hate to say is really not the case. It also keeps going back to this door. We see there's something off about the hallway to it. It goes to this shot a few times, getting closer and closer. The problem though is that the reveal there didn't amount to much either.

What also couldn't carry this was the acting. Fisher's performance was J was weak to me. He lacks the emotion to pull off what he's trying to do, but I thought he made for a solid Hyde if I'm going to be honest. Turner is probably the most famous person here and I recognize her as a supporting actress in quite a few things. She was fine in this movie, but she didn't blow me away. The rest of the cast was all right, but no one really stood out and the performances were pretty mediocre to be honest.

That will take me over to the effects which to be honest, aren't that bad. The real problem is that they didn't do more with them. I was wondering if they didn't due to budget or not making them look real. The blood, wounds and gunshots that are used look pretty real as they were done practically. There wasn't much in the way of CGI aside from a few times we see J taking the drug and it is showing it go into his blood stream. That really wasn't that bad, but also not really needed. The cinematography was also fine in my opinion.

Now with that said, this one does do a bit different take on the classic tale, but the problem is that they really don't develop enough around it to really stand apart. I like changing the idea from a monster to someone who is addicted to a drug, as that is still a core idea of the novel in a sense. The movie though ultimately was boring. I didn't really care about any of the characters. The effects in the movie were really good, but we just don't get a lot of them and not seeing more of the attacks or the deaths really hurts the product overall. The soundtrack didn't really stand out to me, but it also wasn't anything that really hurt it either. I'd say that this is below average to me unfortunately and can't really recommend it. It's a shame that a few different changes could have brought this up quite a bit in my opinion.

4.5/10

Jekyll + Hyde destroys the subtlety and groundwork of Robert Louis Stevenson's most famous novella

[kerwickjosh · 2/10 · 27 July 2017]

To be blunt, Jekyll + Hyde was terrible. In the original novella, the idea behind the characters of Jekyll and Hyde was that he was meant to create Hyde to represent the evil side of himself, and so that he could partake in these evil activities without notice. In Jekyll + Hyde though, from what I gathered, his reasons for creating Hyde were purely materialistic. He just wanted to be someone different who would have confidence and be able to talk to girls, and creates a pill derived from ecstasy that only changes his personality (very minimally too) into a bad person, and continuously has sex with different women and kills people, and there seems to be no real reason why. In this excuse for a movie, there is not even a transformation from Jekyll to Hyde, or vice versa. It's hard to tell when Jekyll is Hyde, or when Hyde is Jekyll. The idea is supposed to be that Hyde looks vastly different, or at least has a defining feature that separates him from Jekyll. There is nothing in this movie to indicate this, apart from the fact he inherits more violent tendencies and of course, as mentioned, has a lot of sex. It really just seems that he becomes addicted to a drug that changes the way he acts, rather than a drug that makes him a completely different person. As for other aspects of film-making, the cinematography was uninspired, the acting was pretty terrible and the script, aside from story issues, was written terribly, and had many parts that felt unnecessary.

In case my opinion had not come off clearly enough, I think Jekyll + Hyde is a very poor attempt at film-making. Not only is the original story of The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde completely butchered, but it is also put into the genre of teen slasher horror, perhaps the most heinous type of genre to evaluate such a book into. The original has traces of horror, yes, but it also thrives on its subtlety and the telling of the story, and quite frankly, Jekyll + Hyde does neither of these things.

a must see for the people that tend to experiment

[lsduser · 10/10 · 18 July 2006]

Almost everyone of us has had the thought of shifting personalities once or twice, or maybe just in some situations, that we couldn't respond to in the way we wished we could. So, if you are the kind of people, that tend to experiment with things, or sometimes trying something, that might not end well, this movie will give you the shivers; otherwise it might be a little bit uninteresting. As for the movie itself, there really is little new in the horror elements, although they are not typical slasher style, like Saw or Hostel (and i didn't give any of them more than 6), and there are some crazy shots. But if you have your own story, or maybe just a fantasy or fear, that you can refer to, you must see Jekyll+Hyde, but beware, it might mess with your head:P. The acting isn't all bad, and that especially goes to the main character, who is actually two characters, and is more than just watchable (and Martha is hot).

I guess the actual rating should be 8/9, but i gave it a 10, because it's the first movie since i was thirteen, that i had nightmares after i saw it (and i really missed that:).

Better than I thought

[the_ashwee · 8/10 · 4 December 2006]

I had no real expectation of Jekyll + Hyde but the cover of the DVD was very appealing and since I work in a video store I thought what the hell.

However slow the story unfolds at times, the concept is both very intriguing and most enjoyable. Although the movie lacked the scare factor perhaps down to the slow pace of the film I still thought it was thoroughly intriguing and well directed film.

The story line lacks at times but then again is a modern take on an old story. Don't watch this film if you want the crap scared out of you but watch it if you would like to see an interesting directing style for a horror and a very good message through a very old story.

• Ash

Great Work on the Jekyll/Hyde topic!

[sethrinemofet · 10/10 · 23 September 2006]

I've seen this film together with my girlfriend who is an astonished fan of horror and psycho movies. Both, her and me, had a very nice evening with cooking and beer. This movies completed our evening! On my mind the story is (like hannes mentioned) an often viewed thing in the genre, but to follow the idea and opinion of a truly engaged horror movie collector this is a film you have to have in your collection! Uknown but magnifying artists. A Great and classic concept for a nice low budget production. My girlfriend is already looking for new movies in the videostore... with the hope of getting new stuff of the smart guys behind the cameras! 10 Points for this Evening :) !!!

stunning music and sound effects

[hannibunny · 10/10 · 19 September 2006]

I've seen Jekyll+Hyde with some friends the other night and must rate it a nine out of ten. No question the story has been told several times before and the idea behind this version is not really completely different – but hey, that's what you want to see if you choose to watch a classic. Keeping in mind that this one is a low budget production, I must say the crew did an excellent job. Especially the music and the sound effects are absolutely stunning. It will blast your head off. I'd love to know whether there is a soundtrack available. Does anyone know?? Also the acting of Martha and Hyde is outstanding. I have never seen these guys in another movie before to be honest. Great cast! All in all the movie is definitely worth watching and will get a good place in my DVD-shelf. It has some really sick scenes and shots in it. I will definitely keep an eye on the guys from Urban Chillers Films. Curious what the will come up with next… greetings from Germany. Hannes

A must watch

[kelz-2003 · 9/10 · 1 November 2006]

I think this movie was done very very well. I to have not seen any of the actors/actresses perform before, however for a movie that hasn't had many reviews they were brilliant. I believe that most people will find it a tad predictable, this is only because everyone knows the story before this movie was made. The precision to Hyde (Jays) character was done so well, and it goes to show you how little humans do know about themselves! To be able to understand the mind of such a person is a difficult task, and I think if it had of been more complex in this movie it would have clearly lost viewers. Because most can't grasp the concept of what our true instincts can involve, and having the ability to focus oneself souly on acting on desires and wants, people tend to shy away from such a subject due to fear of finding such tendencies in themselves. Perhaps before pointing the finger at the world and blaming it for the actions of others, we should take a look and see what truly hides within ourselves.

On a second note for those of you who wish to experiment on subjects such as yourselves, make sure you have a fair idea of what you're getting yourself into. I have experienced a chemical inbalance in the brain to cause violence and absence of mind control, it isn't a nice thing to endure, especially when that majority part of my life is mostly blank, but goes to show how easily things happen when created let alone when nature takes it true course.

Byran Fisher is going to be a huge star soon...

[Houseofpaws · 10/10 · 4 December 2006]

This is suspenseful, kind of scary movie. It's a young version of the story. It's about a young genius medical student and he's not happy with his life. His whole life he's been the outcast type of guy, so he comes up with this drug that makes him this other person. The problem is, of course, the drug has many side affects and he eventually loses control. It's cool because a lot of kids can relate to it, cause who didn't wish when they were younger that they could just take a pill and be someone else. Plus, I think that Bryan Fisher is gorgeous. I think that we will soon be seeing him on the big screen a lot in the future. Bryan Fisher if you read this, you have such a hot 'sex face.' I can't wait to watch you in your future movies. Jekyll plus Hyde was awesome.