Doctor Jekyll

For a handsome man, Eddie Izzard is one ugly woman but he/she/or whatever pronoun he's using now (I couldnt be bothered to keep up), is an outstanding actor and lends great suspense to this film.

The film itself is an excellent re-telling/re-vamping/modernization of the Jekyll/Hyde story and held my interest throughout.

I readily admit that I wasn't expecting much from this and actually thought it might be one of those hated horror/comedy flicks, but there was no comedy in it at all--at least none that was intended.

Scott Chambers was exceptional as "Rob" and there was little doubt he was Robert Louis Stephenson from the get-go which made the entire premise even more satisfying.

Overall, it was a most engaging, most enjoyable interpretation.

I was delighted to hear of the rebirth of the old Hammer label, and was very much looking forward to this film. Unfortunately, it was mostly a disappointment.

There is, admittedly, much to like. Eddie Izzard is good as the secretive and reclusive Nina Jekyll, and Scott Chambers exudes the right level of naivety.

On the other hand, there were flaws. Lindsay Duncan was excellent when she was on screen, but not nearly enough was made of her character; and Rob seemed to be persuaded to assist Dr Jekyll so easily that it stretched credulity to breaking point. An additional scene in which he learns of the horrific double nature of his employer would've added much.

In addition, the casting of Izzard - a transexual actor - in the title role led me to expect a transformation that was gender-fluid, at the least. In my view this would've made a more interesting film, and was a wasted opportunity.

The sub-plot regarding Rob's daughter was a nice touch, and the twist at the end was clever.

I hope Hammer is revived, but if it is, this film will not be regarded as its greatest achievement.

Thanks to director Joe Stephenson and Hammer Studios, we have DOCTOR JEKYLL, a modern "re-imagining" of the famous 1886 novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. There have been a number of these over the years, but Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide are such classic characters from the horror and weird fiction canon that my genre-loving ass was more than happy to experience another outing.

The consensus? Mixed. I found plenty to love here but your enjoyment will ultimately come from your disposition and patience towards the horror genre itself and, specifically, the low-budget-veering on camp-gothic horror that Hammer is best known for.

Positives? The leads. They shine individually, but it's really their scenes together that are the true stars. Eddie Izzard was an absolute delight on screen and I'd love to see her in more stuff. Scott Chambers was quite good too, the charm and innocence of Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates (early Psycho) highly present throughout this particular performance; whether this was intentional or not I do not know but I very much enjoyed it.

Negatives? This has a very low-budget feel and a MESSY plot. Nothing felt very thoroughly thought out and I believe a few head-scratches and eye-rolls could have been avoided with just a few more passes on the script.

RANDOM PRAISE +

-In this universe, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide can't have cereal and I find that very, very funny.

RANDOM CRITIQUE -

• A character chooses to dismiss the danger and implications of a bloody phone. What a silly goose.

TAKEAWAY ?

-Green cigarettes (just cigarettes in general tbh) should be avoided.

This one is a low-end pseudo-horror flick that will have the Hammer founders revolving in their graves. The quality of this is many miles away from the iconic Hammer productions of old.

This one is a shoe-string budget movie with an interesting premise (although it is many miles removed from the original story and its undepinnings: the "Hyde" personality here is more of a curse that can be passed onto another person, instead of the animal-self gaining hold of the individual who takes the "medicine". This is a major departure from the original story, which was completely sci-fi - this new take is the opposite of sci-fi: it's suppernaturalistic mumbo-jumbo).

What saves this flick from total disaster is that the 2 lead actors do a pretty decent job, and that the editor has manajed to pull a cut that's half-decently paced.

Everything else reeks of 3rd-tier, amateurish wannabe-ism. You will never see any of the other perople in the cast in any movie or series anytime soon. (if you're lucky)

This was a movie that I got the chance to see thanks to Keir Waller from Strike Media who sent over a screener. What caught my interest was that this is a Hammer film. They're a studio that I sought out after watching the original Universal classic films. This is them doing a modern take on a classic story now that they're back making features. I had heard about this film being made so that helped as well.

Synopsis: a modern re-imaging of the infamous story about Dr. Jekyll (Eddie Izzard).

We start this with Rob (Scott Chambers) lying down on a couch, turning on the television. What I like here is that we fill in the back-story about Dr. Nina Jekyll through newspaper headlines as it gives the credits. She is the head of a pharmaceutical company who has made important advancements for drugs and it's been lucrative. She has suffered an injury though that made her a recluse.

This then introduces our lead more. Rob is a former convict. This gets revealed shortly, but I wanted to go ahead and give this information here. He has a job interview set up thanks to his brother, Ewan (Morgan Watkins), who he lives with. We will also learn that Rob has a daughter, who is in foster care and has cancer. Her name is Ariana. Rob needs a job if he wants a chance to see her.

Rob goes to the address he was given and meets with Dr. Jekyll's assistant, Sandra (Lindsay Duncan). She isn't a fan of Rob and the more that she learns about him, she is upset that he wasn't vetted more. Nina is intrigued though. She offers the job on a trial basis. The job is to tend to Nina's needs, like preparing meals, giving medications and whatever is needed. Rob does things that upset Sandra and she's ready to fire him. Nina defends Rob and seems to forget things that she asks.

Things then take a turn when Rob goes to the store to pick up things. It is here that his ex and the mother of their child, Maeve (Robyn Cara), approaches. She knows where he is working. She wants him to let her and her crew in to rob Nina. He can't do that though. He's put in a bad position when she threatens to reveal information about him, making it impossible to see his daughter.

There are also things that Nina asks of Rob. It makes it more difficult for him since Sandra is ready to fire him. That is just the start. Darker things are asked that could put Rob back in prison, but if he does them, Nina is willing to share her fortune to help him. She also has a miracle drug that she claims can cure Ari.

That is where I'll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Where I want to start is that I thought it was an interesting move to use the transgender actor, Izzard, for the titular character as well as the alter ego. For me, I don't have any issues here. This also isn't the first time this idea has been used. Hammer made Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde in 1971. I also remember Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde from 1995 where the doctor changes into a woman. We get something different from what I've seen here though having Izzard playing both Jekyll and Hyde as women characters.

Now that I have that out of the way, where I want to shift then would be the character of Rob. I felt for him the more we learn. Originally, I thought that he was just a slacker who needed a job. Seeing how appreciative he is toward his brother for getting him the interview made me smile. We then learn there that he's an ex-con. He needs a job to show the courts and the government to get to see his child. They've never met. That made me tear up. I root for him from there. Then seeing what Maeve is pushing and trying to do drives tension. It culminates with Nina wanting to help him. That is when we realize that he isn't always sure who he's talking to there, Jekyll or Hyde. Chambers does good in this role, so credit to him.

Next up should be discussing Izzard and taking on these dual roles. What is interesting here is that she plays Hyde subtly to the point where I didn't necessarily know until later that is who she was. I should have though, knowing this source material. That makes it scarier to where it ends up. I'm not overly familiar with her standup specials, but I've seen her periodically in films. She is talented and that comedic timing works well here. Izzard seems like this brilliant doctor who has run into an issue, physically. The more we see, the more devious it becomes with what their end game is. I didn't fully appreciate this until the end once all the reveals are done.

Something else I should say is that this is a contained film. Once we get to the estate, Rob goes out a couple of times then we're at the resolution which isn't in this manor. It is mostly Nina and Rob interacting with Sandra, Maeve and Ewan influencing them. There is a back-story introduced with Jonathan Hyde and Isabella Inchbald as well. This is a much different take than others I've seen which I did end up appreciating. This setting has room both inside and out so that adds to it as well.

Now I've already started in with the acting, so let me finish there. I've already said that Izzard and Chambers are both good. I like Duncan and what her role does to the self-esteem of Rob. She stands as the outside world and how they view ex-criminals. Cara is there to potentially ruin Rob's life and pull him back into committing crimes. Not directly, but he would be suspected. Watkins is good as well in his smaller role. Credit to cameos here by Hyde, Simon Callow, Tony Jayawardena and Inchbald as well.

All that is left then is filmmaking. I've already said that I like the setting being isolated like it is. What is good there is that it isn't too far out of town either. The cinematography was good to capture where this is set and make it feel claustrophobic. They also have limited effects at times where they frame it to hide the seams. No issues there. I did have a problem with Jekyll and Hyde seeming too not be all that different. There are reveals there as this concludes that clears that up. The latter is more of a figurative monster than a literal one like films of the past or the source material. Other than that, I thought the soundtrack fit for what was needed.

In conclusion, this is a bit different from versions of this that I've seen in the past. I've seen quite a few. I like that Izzard is making both Jekyll and Hyde as women. She has a subtle performance that makes sense in the reveal and I appreciated that. Chambers also does well as this ex-con character and how that fits into the narrative. This is made well enough. No glaring issues there. The best parts are the isolated and contained setting as well as the cinematography. Not sure that I can recommend this to everyone. It is an unconventional take on the source material that I appreciated. If you like Izzard's acting or what to see a different take, then I'd recommend it to you.

My Rating: 7 out of 10.