Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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 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.

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.")

After several adaptations of Robert Louis Stevenson's work, Universal decided to revive the story again in a very special era. It should be mentioned that Universal was in charge of one of the first three adaptations of Jekyll and Hyde that were made in the silent film era. While the first original adaptation was lost, only the 1912 short film and the medium-length film produced by Universal survived. This is something important to emphasize because the Universal adaptation was the pilot episode of the classic monster franchise that would last until the 1950s. The 1990s and 2000s were an excellent time for the monsters of that franchise to be reincarnated in improved versions or retaining the most essential elements that characterized them. Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Phantom of the Opera, Van Helsing and The Invisible Man had worthy reincarnations during that time. Some by Universal and others by other studios. Jekyll and Hyde were not far behind and although it is a film that was made for television, Universal has made a magnificent reincarnation of the character.

Like many adaptations that have been made before, this film focuses on Jekyll as the protagonist, but using the letter that is left for Utterson. The novel uses the letter in the final chapter to clarify everything that has happened throughout the book. This film uses the letter that Utterson reads to tell the whole story written by Jekyll's hand. The story is not exactly the same as the novel, but this film is undoubtedly one of the best adaptations that have been made. The film has, in an obvious or implicit way, all the elements and themes that have made the novel the target of analysis and different interpretations. The film manages to recreate the Victorian setting and replicate the Gothic aspect of the work. If you are aware of the different interpretations and theories that have been drawn about the meaning of the story, in the film you can identify all those things that are part of the construction of the plot. The duality between good and evil in human beings has always been at the center of the story of Jekyll and Hyde, but good and evil is a concept with different meanings depending on each interpretation.

One element present is Freud's theory about lower instincts being hidden under the person who complies with the norms of society. These natural instincts that humans possess are linked to the animal side of the human being. In the film, Jekyll mentions that humans are actually animals that hide their natural instincts and that leads to another interpretation of the novel in which Hyde would represent the primitive side of the human being. This is where positivist ideas come into play about how wild behavior has to do with an evolutionary failure. According to these ideas, science is the only thing that can repair that as if it were a disease. Jekyll's objective with the substance has to do with this idea that evil is something that can be removed. Continuing with the instinctive part, emphasis is placed on the sexual and violent behavior of human beings. Something that Hyde has been carrying out in the film after being released. These behaviors were associated with evil due to the morality of the Victorian era. In that era, religious ideas prevailed that we should leave our animal instincts behind in order to fit into society. From this, another interpretation of the dualism of Jekyll and Hyde arises as the internal struggle of the human being to remain free of sin. Jekyll would be the correct human in that aspect and Hyde would be the sin. More explicitly, Hyde would be the devil or the demon inside us that forces us to sin. In the film, Hyde acts as a demon and Mabel in the last minutes of the film as an angel who tries to guide Jekyll to his salvation. Of course, there was a trap in Victorian society and this is seen in the character of Danvers. The film implies that she is an important figure who is willing to keep her image clean. In the discussion with Jekyll after discovering what happened to Rachel, there are hints that Danvers' friends visit the low places that Hyde has visited to enjoy his pleasures. This is a reference to another metaphor in the novel, which is the hypocrisy of the Victorian era. This has been one of the symbolisms of the novel, because it deals with someone who, in the role of Jekyll, is someone respectable, but in the role of Hyde, commits immoral acts. Although Hyde's acts are atrocious, given the hypocrisy of that society, he had his reasons for rebelling. In addition, the film also has references to the classism that existed at that time. In the film, we see how Jekyll has repressed feelings of frustration for this society in which he must keep his reputation intact. Another rather far-fetched interpretation that has been had of the novel is that Jekyll is a repressed homosexual and the film makes two nods to this interpretation. The first is when Florrie says "who knows what those two do upstairs" as if insinuating that Jekyll is having an affair with Hyde. The second is when Hyde gives Jekyll a kind of kiss. At this point, it does not seem a coincidence that Jekyll's fiancée was not included as in previous adaptations. The interpretations that are also quite evident in the film are the addiction to substance use and the psychological disorder. Jekyll is so obsessed with the substance that he does not stop injecting it until he realizes the damage it causes. Jekyll mentions Hyde as a parasite that eats away at him and his behavior is very similar to that of a person with a strong dependence on drugs. In that aspect, the film reflects how alcohol and drugs can destroy a person's humanity to the point of leading him to cross certain limits. Finally, the psychological part has to do with the personality disorder. In the first adaptations, Jekyll was transformed into a monster in a literal way, but from the 1941 adaptation onwards that was changed to a more metaphorical and realistic monster. In this film, Hyde manifests himself as a second personality built through Jekyll's repressed feelings. The film portrays Jekyll and Hyde as a person who suffers from a personality disorder and has all the characteristics of someone who suffers from that condition.

Without a doubt, the film managed to collect all those themes and interpretations of the novel and that makes this a perfect adaptation. It did not need to narrate everything as it is written in the novel, it only took all those meanings and allegories that have made the work a classic of literature. This film is a very well developed gothic tale that has the essence of the novel and being a psychological thriller that gradually transmits a feeling of horror, it knew how to take advantage of all the themes that the novel has transmitted to readers. Everything related to the social, psychological or spiritual that has been interpreted from the novel is present in this film. That makes it a worthy adaptation and a masterpiece that has been forgotten over the years. This version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde is one of those forgotten gems that deserves to be seen again. It knew how to combine very well the social, psychological, scientific and religious ideas about good and evil in human beings. My final rating for this film is 10/10.

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