Doctor Jekyll

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.

While those audience members expecting full-blown Gothic horror may be disappointed, older viewers who remember the Hammer studio's psychological thrillers, particularly Fear in the Night, Fanatic, Crescendo and Paranoiac, may feel more well-disposed to this thrilling film.

This film niftily straddles the Gothic horrors of Terence Fisher and the studio's so-called mini-Hitchcocks from the likes of Freddie Francis and Val Guest. The latter films often took place in enclosed setting and have a claustrophobic feel, and either sculptured b/w or highly stylised colour photography, and this film neatly reflects that style, while the music score delivers the required feel.

Izzard gives a great performance that rivals the scenery-chewing performances of the stars of Hammer's previous grands guinols, Bette Davis, Tallulah Bankhead and Margaurite Scott.

Yes, there are a few plot flaws, and yes, the dénoûment is signalled at the start, but unlike the previous attemps to reboot Hammer, this feels right and not like an Amicus spin-off, so let's be thankful for this effort and enjoy it.

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)

The traditional story of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde given a modern spin, starting Eddie Izzard.

I was really excited about seeing it, and keen to see what Izzard was going to inject into the role. The result, was sadly underwhelming. I liked the start, but it just became dull and a little boring at times, I didn't care for the ending.

I thought the cinema would have been packed out for this on the opening weekend, there were four of us, that should have been enough.

I was really hoping for a dark, gothic horror, what it turned out to be was a fairly lame comedy, with horror elements here and there. I didn't care much for Izzard's character, just irritating more than anything.

It was hard at times to work out which was Jekyll and which was Hyde, they could have gone a lot further.

Acting wise, Izzard was alright, I can't say there was anything particularly good, the quality I thought, came from Lindsay Duncan.

Watchable enough, but very disappointed.

5/10.