Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2008 TV Movie) User Reviews

An Enjoyable Watch

[wsmith-26 · 6/10 · 27 May 2008]

If you are wary of seeing the same movie redone again, and again, don't let that stop you from watching this version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.

No, it is not perfect, and yes it does drag a bit, but there is enough here to recommend it to any horror fan.

There is an interesting enough plot twist that explains Mr. Hyde's existence that gives a new angle to this old story. Dougray Scott is very good in the lead role, and the attorney representing Dr. Jekkyl (Krista Bridges) is very easy to look at and does a fine job in her role, as well.

The transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are actually well done, inasmuch as they are not overdone.

There is one major Hollywood moment - yes, the scientist discovers the antidote just as he is being arrested and is unable to administer it to himself. Oh, if he only had one more second! The trial is difficult to believe, but contrivances are something I have learned to live with as a horror fan.

There is a very nice twist at the end, though not completely surprising.

Although Tom Skerrit is heavily publicized in the ads for the movie, his role is actually rather small and unnecessary.

Over all, well worth a watch.

Forgettable Update

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 17 January 2009]

In Boston, a mysterious serial-killer is attacking and murdering women. The distinguished Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott) asks his friend Gabe Utterson (Tom Skerritt) to indicate an attorney for him and he schedules a visit to Claire Wheaton (Krista Bridges). He confesses that he was the subject of his research with psychotropic trying to isolate the evil side of the human beings and he is responsible for the murders. When Dr. Jekyll goes to court for the trial, Claire wants to prove that the killer is the unknown Mr. Edward Hyde.

This umpteenth version of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" is a forgettable update of the classic story. Set in Boston in the present days, instead of London in the end of the Nineteenth Century, the plot is confused and the conclusion is predictable in spite of the good acting of Dougray Scott. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – O Médico e o Monstro" ("Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde – The Doctor and the Monster")

Updated Jeckyll and Hyde

[kairingler · 5/10 · 27 June 2008]

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

Very bad movie

[Mikey_0782 · 1/10 · 23 November 2009]

You won't be happy with this movie if you really like the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It is the product of a big lack of creativity and respect for the original story.

I think the main problem is that they obviously tried to make this movie as if the story happens for the very first time, which is very wrong to begin with because you can't expect viewers to rediscover the whole thing with such a worldwide known story.

Apart from that, you really won't be satisfied either by the performance of the cast, or the "new plot" for that matter. It contains virtually no suspense, everything from the beginning until the end is very predictable and even the actors seem to have no interest at all for playing in this movie. When the movie ends, it gives you the feeling that they wanted to give you an idea of what it would have been if the events occurred to Henry Jekyll today instead of the late 19th century, but they were either incapable or they wanted it to be done very quickly (a bit like you didn't want to put too much time or effort in your school work last night, so you just applied some basic rules to it and did nothing more, hoping for a reasonable note).

So since they wanted it to look like it's a new story, let me put it this way : If Robert-Louis Stevenson had not written the story in 1886, but this movie would have been the original story, you can be sure nobody would even remember the title some 120 years from now. I give it a 1/10, only because 0 is not available.

DR. Boring MR. Stiff

[dcmsn · 2/10 · 10 August 2008]

I love how people say the transformation was good when there is little transformation from Dr. to Hyde. All they did here was have the actor twitch his head and act stiff and make bizarre faces like he was constipated.

So all you have is the worst remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!

The one BIG mistake this film makes is when the helper of DR. Jekyll testifies, it doesn't make any sense just like most of this slow moving farce.

I gave it a 2 instead of 1 cause of the yellow lights that were used during the night scenes (HPS Bulbs In the Light Fixtures) just sheer brilliance.

Snooze fest

[brucegilbert · 2/10 · 22 May 2015]

If you picked up some poo and clapped your hands together you would have more fun, Mr. Hyde lands in the dull section and never leaves it. Scott isn't perfect but his performance(s) are the best part of the film which is not saying a lot. He seems to be enjoying himself as Mr Hyde but he would look more at home in a gay bar he is just to camp to be believable and it adds little to the audience's enjoyment. Hyde isn't exactly scary, more like a mix between The Joker and Jack Sparrow but whatever the mix it does not work or come together. He also isn't monstrous, which disappointed me no end. The ending was obvious and a real let down when it could have been much more so you end up feeling flat and thinking there goes 90 minutes of my life I wont get back, there is no suspense whats so ever and Mr Hyde is about as scary as watching paint dry. The court scene is laughable. In a word AVOID.

A Bland Budget Makes For A Bland TV Movie

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 12 May 2013]

This is yet another version of Robert Louis Steveson's THE STRANGE CASE OF DOCTOR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE and if truth be told this is possibly the most bland version you will see . It's inoffensive containing the sort of material that'd make it through he censors of a dull daytime TV soap . It is as uninvolving as it is inoffensive . Director Paolo Barzman doesn't have a big enough budget to do the story justice and much of the story is told in medium close up and we get some very choppy editing . When Doctor Jekyll relates a story about being in the Amazon we don't get an establishing shot of wild untamed majestic shots of the tropical rain forest we get a close up of a fire and a couple of Oriental extras giving the impression that it was filmed in someone's fireside living room . Hey I wonder if ....

Scottish actor Dougray Scott plays the title character and he's somewhat ill cast in the role . His American accent is totally unconvincing as Dr Henry Jekyll and seems to think Mr Hyde is a bit of a camp homosexual , honestly the villain comes across as some pantomime dame and will have you booing and hissing and throwing popcorn at the screen . It's not even bad enough to be entertaining high camp , just ... oh what's the word ? ... oh bland . That's the word I'm looking for

That said I did see Dougray Scott in an episode of DOCTOR WHO a couple of weeks ago and his performance was probably the best thing about the episode so one wonders if he could be a ready made replacement for Matt Smith once he leaves the role . At the very worst Scott giving a bad performance as the Doctor would be ..... bland

Average Horror Film With a Weak Trial Drama

[gavin6942 · 13 October 2011]

Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott), unable to stop himself from transforming into the murderous Edward Hyde, wants his attorney to secure him a speedy trial, a guilty verdict and a quick execution.

The star power in this film is Tom Skerritt, which does not say much for this film. But we also have Kim Bubbs (as a secretary), a friend of Killer Reviews. So, that was good enough reason for me to watch it! (See Kim in "The Thing".)

The horror part is pretty average -- this story has been told so many times, you really cannot add a new element to it any more. (What is interesting, at least to me, is that this film seemingly exists in a world circa 2008, but that would be a world where the classic Jekyll/Hyde story never existed... weird.)

The trial scenes... wow, big fail. There is no cross-examination, there is too much conjecture from the defense attorney outside of closing arguments. The person who wrote this film is not familiar with court procedures apparently. There are worse court scenes in films, but this still makes the list of bad ones.

Not half bad, but not half good either.

[Mattphesto · 5/10 · 14 December 2008]

As a borderline schizoid and fan of the original short story I'm always up for perusing any new J&H material. After catching this curio on Sky I felt compelled to comment. The usual themes of duality and the nature of guilt and morality are all present and correct. As is usual in most screen re-imaginings of Stephenson's tale an obligatory love-interest is tacked on in the form of a pretty female lawyer with whom Hyde confides. There's no real gratuitous violence or gore here, the horror seems to be attempting to stem from the psychological, unfortunately this never really gels together. As such, we're left with a fairly entertaining if unnecessary and understated (there's no real physical changes apparent between Henry & Edward) version of the familiar story. There's a fairly feeble 'twist' ending that anyone not recovering from recent cranial surgery should see coming at least a couple of furlongs off.

5/10. P.S: For a vastly superior contemporary take on the tale viewers could do much worse than check out the recent BBC mini series 'Jekyll' starring James Nesbitt. It's available on DVD and well worth a watch.

much better than rated

[A_Different_Drummer · 7/10 · 27 March 2016]

First and most important, the film is solid and entertaining and Scott gives the performance of his life.

Most interesting to this reviewer was how ambitious this production was. In the first decade of the millennium, the Canuck industry was still trying to find itself. Soul searching.

Ultimately the industry would decide it was easier and more profitable to aim for niche product other producers had avoided.

Which is why (and I have said this before) 90% of the X-Mas movies that appear in late fall are Canadian, and without shame or apology.

(There is even a 100% Canuck version of Miracle on 34th Street, but that is another review entirely).

Canada is also where franchises go to die, which is why you might see might see version 4 or 5 of a film series you did not know HAD a 4 or 5..? Canada to the rescue.

So in 2008 we had a rare in stance of Canada perhaps getting too ambitious for its own good, and this is the result. For Canadians, it is almost comic to see Toronto pretending to be a US city -- again -- and reporters carrying mikes where the call letters start with "W".

That said, the film is solid. Skerritt picked up a paycheck for doing only a few scenes and Krista Bridges -- an actress you would ordinarily only see in the aforesaid X-Mas knockoffs -- also does a solid job.

Recommended.

Undoubtedly the least entertaining of all the Jekyll & Hyde adaptations

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 4 July 2016]

This Canadian TV movie update of the classic horror story attempts to retell the story in a modern setting but ends up looking like a derivative episode of CSI meets LAW & ORDER. The only thing halfway good about this production is the presence of Scottish actor Dougray Scott playing the maladjusted scientist, but even Scott can't make headway in this dog's dinner of a production. There's no budget here, so most scenes take place in cheap office settings or dingy rooms. Far too much time is spent on boring courtroom drama at the climax, followed by a ridiculously predictable 'twist' ending which everyone will see coming a mile off.

There's no gore or action to speak of. Hyde kills a couple of hookers in some badly disjointed scenes while his transformations are performed without the aid of any make up or special effects (aside from some creepy contact lenses in a few instances). It relies totally on Scott to act the part, but he just can't overcome the shortcomings of the brain-dead script to make this worth watching. It's one of those films where nothing happens and the only familiar faces (including Tom Skerritt as Jekyll's buddy) look distinctly embarrassed by their appearance.

Nifty contemporary version of the classic story

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 10 July 2012]

Kindly physician Dr. Henry Jekyll (an excellent performance by Dougray Scott) is involved in experiments that unleash his more cocky and lethal serial killer alter ego Mr. Edward Hyde. Unable to repress his deadly and depraved alter ego, Jekyll turns himself over to the authorities and asks smart lawyer Claire Utterson (well played by Krista Bridges) to represent his unusual case in court. Director Paolo Barzman, working from a crafty script by Paul Margolis, smartly updates the story to a modern urban American setting, creates and sustains an appropriately somber mood, offers a neat meditation on the duality of good and evil in the human spirit, and handles the subject matter in a thoughtful, tasteful, and restrained way (the transformation scenes in particular are treated in a subtle and effective manner, with minimal make-up and a noted emphasis on Scott's exceptional acting). Scott simply excels in the juicy lead role: He brings a real frightening intensity to the supremely wicked Hyde and projects a properly tormented anguish as the guilt-ridden Jekyll. Moreover, Scott receives sturdy support from Tom Skerritt as concerned art gallery owner best friend Gabe Utterson, Danette Mackay as loyal housekeeper Mrs. Poole, and Cas Anvar as shrewd attorney D.A. McBride. Pierre Jodoin's slick cinematography gives the picture a pleasing polished look. FM Le Sieur's pulsating score hits the shuddery spot. The surprise twist ending is pretty chilling. Worth a watch.

Superficial Jekyll and Hyde

[kryziss · 6/10 · 3 November 2008]

Although I obviously know the concept of Jekyll and Hyde, this is the first full film I ever saw on the subject. The movie was decent to watch, but I have the feeling it's a bit superficial. Never was I actually scared, shocked or thrilled. It was all too normal for my taste.

Another negative side to the film is its ending. I guess a minimum of 90% of the viewers will be able to guess the ending after seeing the prison interview where the lawyer gives Jekyll the syringe.

Despite this negative critique, the movie also has its up side. The film's mildly entertaining.

All in all decent cinematography, quite superficial narrative, reasonable acting. It's 'watcheable' just don't expect too much of it.

Disappontinting

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 4/10 · 16 April 2015]

The Story of Dr.Jekyll and Mr Hyde in general is good. The books is great. There have been some great films based on it. Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde (1931) is a great film. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1920) is a great film. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1941) is a great film. This one is very disappointing. The story line is awful. And it has an awful ending. It is very slow. The hole thing became a court room drama trying to prove that Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde are not same person. It was based on the book but it did not say very true to it. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1912) is great. But this is pooh pooh. This is a big stinky fart. Don't wast your money.

A mediocre televison production loosely based on Robert Louis Stevenson's macabre story

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 20 November 2022]

This new versions boasts an acceptable cast , such as Dougray Scott giving a bravura acting as the infamous Doctor , Tom Skerritt and Krista Bridges . Run-of-the-mill rendition of Robert Louis Stevenson 's popular story dealing with Henry Jekyll : Dougray Scott and his own nemesis , Hyde. Jekyll is a well-regarded physician whose evenings are spent researching a rare and sacred Amazonian flower so potent it's said to literally separate the soul, giving life to man's Dark Self. These experiments lead to release of his ruthless alter ego Mr Hyde . Dr. Henry Jekyll . The obsessive experiments to isolate its psychotropic properties happen to coincide with a series of brutal murders gripping the city with fear . Dougray/Jekyll/Hyde himself becomes a raging beast driven to terrible deeds with creepy results . Jekyll is a doctor who dares to venture into the unknown , but things go wrong when Hyde exects criminal acts and violent incidents . He knows the Dark Self is coming into his own. It's even given himself a name : Mr. Edward Hyde. Where he can no longer do harm, Jekyll solicits the help of Claire Wheaton : Krista Bridges . He awakens with bloody mementos and violent memories of the screams of his victims . Agreeing to represent Jekyll , her case for extreme mental imbalance is convincing . Confined to a jail , Jekyll realizes that he has lost control, that Hyde now emerges in both body and soul on a horrifying whim, and slaughters with equal abandon. Hyde also knows that Claire is looking to suppress him. Are You a Jeykll or a Hyde? Do you have secret longings that you dare not reveal? If you do, it's the Mr. Hyde in you .There is a little bit of both in everybody!.It Chills you! Half-Man ! Half-Monster!. Everyone has a dark side !.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2008) contains thrills, suspense , chills , mystery , horrifying scenes , all of them you can find out all about it from this TV film . This is the classic and known story of the famous novelist Robert Louis Stevenson in which Hyde pits everyone against each other , while Jekyll struggles to retain control over the insidious other half. Here is blended the Robert Stevenson's vintage story with the criminal court genre . As Dr. Jekyll, unable to stop himself from transforming into the murderous Mr. Hyde, wants his attorney to secure him a speedy trial, a guilty verdict and a quick execution. It is a so-so film , but neither notable , not awesome , but simply passable. The horror of Jekyll transformation into Hyde is played down in favor of the psychological and emotional consequences . What's more important is the relation among the three main characters : Scott , Bridges and Skerritt . Actors are pretty good , giving decent interpretations . Main and support cast are adequate , Dougray Scott plays an anxious doctor to plead guilty, waive trial, face sentence, and be put out of his misery, relying on heavy make-up as well as conforting his face , along with Krista Bridges as a compassionate attorney attracted to unusual and lost causes and the veteran Tom Skerritt as his faithful friend . This routine retelling was produced by Robert Halmi Sr and regularly directed by Paolo Barzman who has shot lots of episodes of popular series (Being Human , Lost Girl , Killjoys, The Phantom, The Last Templar , Dark Matter , Bomb Girls , Haven , SurrealEstate , Wynonna Earp) .

This classy Robert Louis Stevenson novel has been adapted a large number of times : the first silent 1920 rendition performed by John Barrymore . 1931 adaptation by Robert Mamoulian with Frederic March, Míriam Hopkins . Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1941 by Victor Fleming with Spencer Tracy , Lana Turner , Ingrid Bergman, that's still considered to be one of the finest film version . The two faces of Doctor Jekyll 1960 by Terence Fisher with Paul Massie , Dawn Addams and Chistopher Lee. 1968 by Charles Jarrot with Jack Palance , Denholm Elliott , Oscar Homolka . 1971 by Roy Ward Baker with Martine Beswick, Ralph Bates , Gerald Sim. 1973 by David Winters with Kirk Douglas , Michael Redgrave , Donald Pleasence , Susan George . 1995 by David Price with Sean Young , Tim Daly , Harvey Fierstein. 1999 by Colin Budds with Adam Baldwin , among others.

A Doctor By Day - A Murderer By Night

[IcyTones · 5/10 · 1 October 2020]

Dr Jeckyll puts on a great performance in keeping his 'Alter-ego' Mr Hyde, quiet throughout the duration of his trial.

Through his absence & silence, Mr Hyde out-performs Dr Jeckyll by the pretence of non-existence. With a 'Not Guilty' verdict secured Mr Hyde gets the taste of 'freedom' again and shows up at the home of the female lawyer that defended Dr Jeckyll.

Dull modernized version of the classic tale.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 27 February 2010]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is set in Boston where Harvard graduate doctor & scientist Dr. Henry Jekyll (Dougray Scott) has developed a serum that allows for the separate of the good & bad within us creating a distinct personality for each. Unfortunately Dr. Jekyll's bad side who calls himself Mr. Hyde likes to go around killing young women, six so far. Convinced that he is responsible Dr. Jekyll turns himself over to lawyer Claire Wheaton (Krista Bridges) & confesses all but she doesn't believe him at first, eventually Claire agrees to defend Jekyll & bases her case on the fact that Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde are two completely separate people. Will the jury buy it? Will Dr. Jekyll get the death penalty for Mr. Hyde's crimes?

This Canadian made-for-telly updating of Robert Louis Stevenson's much filmed novel was directed by Paolo Barzman & only keeps the merest themes & ideas from the original book with the setting modern America unlike period London & after the first fifty odd minutes the film switches from bland Jekyll and Hyde to a dull courtroom drama as Jekyll stands trial. There's not much atmosphere or attention to detail here, the kills are forgettable & tame, there's no bubbling test tubes or ancient medical equipment & the reasoning here is some nonsense about ancient Amazonian medical practices using rare flowers which never really comes to anything, neither does the film as a whole really. The murder trial is boring, there's no mystery, there's zero tension, the character's are poor, the dialogue is forgettable & it just feels small scale, Dr. Jekyll's housekeeper is retained from the novel but the main focus of the film is Claire the lawyer as it is from her perspective the story is told. At almost 90 minutes it feels long & there's a really predictable twist ending which you can see coming a mile off, the whole affair although competent is just bland & fails to generate any excitement or tension.

Filmed many times this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is very modernized & it just doesn't feel like the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde films, it feels like a TV film with bright lighting, a family friendly lack of violence & since when did turning in Mr. Hyde let you get run over & knocked about six feet up the road by a huge truck & just get up & walk away totally unhurt? There's zero gore here, Jekyll slits his wrists & a bit of blood is seen on the floor but that's it.

Although set in Boston this was filmed in Montréal in Québec in Canada, the whole film looks bland & there's no sort of atmosphere or style at all. Dougray Scott is rather flat as Jekyll & not much better playing Hyde, Tom Skerritt has a small role as Jekyll's friend.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a classic tale that has been filmed numerous times already going back to the 30's at least & this modern faceless & throughly dull adaption that turns into some horrible courtroom drama is surely unneeded & one of the worst & least recognisable when compared to the original Stevenson novel.

Bizarre...

[tcadier · 3/10 · 11 August 2008]

It's as simple as I said. Bizarre. Everyone knows the story of Jekyll and Hyde, and this version of it, well, it's weird... The acting of Scott is very good, don't be fooled that because the movie is horrible, the acting has to be too. As I don't want to give the whole movie, I will only express myself in one matter: I was disoriented when Hyde disappears on unexplained circumstances. I figure the director wanted to explain this by making Dr Jekyll say "it could have happened because..." but it's just not the way a movie is done. No matter how cliché it may sound, it has to be an explanation, otherwise they'll just make everyone wonder for the rest of the entire movie. Anyway, this is not a movia I'd recommend to see on a Friday night, but it's not a movie not to rent, it's always good to see something bad in order to really appreciate what is actually good.

mediocre

[tu_tuborg16 · 5/10 · 21 July 2008]

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

Jekyll and Hyde....Finally In Court?!?

[Michael_Elliott · 12 February 2011]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2008)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Modern updating of the Robert Louis Stevenson's novel has a serial killer stalking the people of Boston. It turns out to be the respected Dr. Jekyll (Dougray Scott) who while on a trip overseas came up with a potion and when used on himself it turned him into the murderous Mr. Hyde. With the help of a friend (Tom Skerritt) Jekyll is able to get a lawyer (Krista Bridges) who tries to understand him. I've seen well over a dozen versions of this classic novel and I must say this is the first one where Hyde kisses Jekyll on the mouth. I'm not one who is against familiar things being changed around as the London setting has been moved to Boston and it takes place during modern times. I think this could have been used to the film's benefit but instead it just bogs down the story even more as we get silly special effects of Jekyll looking at his monitors before turning into Hyde. This movie offers up a few interesting ideas about the good/evil side of the character but it's all pretty much wasted. I really didn't care for the direction because it seems like Barzman was trying too hard to be stylish and this is clearly a case where less would have been a lot more. Just take a look at many of the transformation scenes and you'll see that the camera is constantly twirling and spinning around and it really does look as if the scenes were being filmed during an earthquake. I'm guessing this was done to try and build up some tension but it never works. We also get other scenes where the camera quickly zooms in and then we're treated to some fast-cut editing, which just makes the entire film look even cheaper than it is. The screenplay doesn't do enough with the current settings and just wait to you see what happens once Jekyll is captured and put on trial. Scott isn't bad but he's not good either. He certainly gives a decent performance and especially when you consider what type of film this is but I had a real problem with both the Hyde and Jekyll characters as he really didn't bring much out of either. Skerritt doesn't get to do too much but it's always nice seeing him. I did enjoy Bridges performance but one only wishes it had been in a better movie. There are so many versions of this story out there that if you're new to them then it's a no-brainer that you should skip this one. If you're like me and enjoy tracking down as many versions as you can then you might want to give this a rental but don't have your expectations too high.

Really dull and boring

[jadgardiner · 3/10 · 12 October 2021]

The only actor remotely engaging is Dr Jekyl/Mr Hyde, but I didn't quite understand why Mr Hyde's actions were so effeminate and/or gay. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but it made it come off as comedic more than scary, so it didn't work. Definitely wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's not the 5/10 stars that IMDB's rating suggests.

a good effort

[jadflack · 8/10 · 10 January 2009]

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