Mary Reilly

John Malkovich was the perfect actor to play/ jekyll hyde- he personfies the good and evil that can coexist in a person. I was very impressed that Julie Roberts had the demeanor of a household servant down so well. My husbands' family comes from a line of women who were domestics when they first came to America in the 1880's-- and his mother said that's how they had to act. Even though it was a little slow- I liked the way the story developed. The fact that Mary can't hate her abusive father because she came from him- helps the doctor understand the dilemna. Altogether a satisfying movie that takes a different view of the Stevenson classic.

In the nineteen century, in London, the dedicated housemaid Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is part of the staff under the command of the butler Mr. Poole (George Cole) that works for Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich). Mary is a traumatized woman that was abused by her father when she was a child and very devoted to Dr. Jekyll. One day, he gathers Mr. Poole and the servants in a room and tells that his assistant Mr. Edward Hyde will be work in his laboratory with free access to the house. Mary Reilly and her mates are unsuccessful to see the mysterious Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll trusts on Mary Reilly and she helps him, delivering letters to the notorious Mrs. Farraday (Glenn Close) that owns a brothel to clean the mess that Mr. Hyde does in the city. Mary Reilly is seduced by the educated Dr. Jekyll and by the reckless and violent Mr. Hyde.

"Mary Reilly" is a dramatic and romantic view of the classic story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde through the eyes of a housemaid. The plot is developed in slow pace and is not exactly an horror movie and maybe this is the reason that many viewers did not like this movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Segredo de Mary Reilly" ("The Secret of Mary Reilly")

Not many movies can get away with keeping Julia Roberts from smiling, but Mary Reilly does so well. It's a movie of subtleties and moods. Its dark themes deal with the oppression of a strict, class-based society in Victorian England as well as the secrets that we all hide inside our hearts. The familiar tale takes intriguing new turns from the viewpoint of the house's servants. John Malkovich, while a tad thin on his English accent, delivers a fantastic performance as both Jekyll and Hyde as he plumbs the depths of morality and the human soul. Hyde is a stark contrast of freedom among the restrained servants of the Jekyll house, and his subtle sexual innuendoes quietly violate the chastity of Victorian stereotypes. Much of the violence occurs off camera until near the climax of the film, which may be one of it's shortcomings. The film is very quiet and slow and may put some viewers to sleep. Another issue I had was the lovely Henson-Workshop-provided effects at the end, which are imaginative, but don't make a bit of sense when compared to the rest of the film. If you can stomach a quiet and very subtle thriller, however, this is a real gem.

I thought it was actually a very good film. I didnt realise when I started watching it that it would be so graphic, I never thought of Roberts doing a Period Horror, and she does better than i would have thought... although the accent is a bit dodgy at times. John is excellent- a very scary Hyde/Jekkel! Glenn Close makes a scarely good whore mistress! all in all a good film well worth watching!

This has to be one of the most maligned films of the past couple of years; it's virtually shoved under the carpet every time Julia Robert's career is mentioned and it's generally dismissed as a bore. And in a lot of ways, it IS boring; not a lot happens during the course of the plot and as a horror film it utterly fails to provide a sense of urgency and fright in the conventional sense.

It's also one of the most elaborate, mysterious and beautifully conceived big-budget fantasies committed to film. The fact of its plodding storyline is, in a sense, besides the point of its true merit; that it is a dark, intensely brooding look at a woman's damaged sexuality and psyche and the oppressive times in which she existed. The original Valerie Martin book ingeniously transmogrified the Robert Louis Stevenson story into an examination of a lost female soul who finds her redemption in a fog-shrouded hell. Stephen Frear's film is in every respect a successful mood piece, a meditation on an individual's dark journey into not just a world of physical violence but her own crippled sense of selfhood and history of abuse. More than most other contemporary films about the Victorian era, this film captures in meticulous and visceral detail the horrors of the Industrial Age---the poverty, the pollution-ridden streets filled with animal gore and filth, and the era's preoccupation/repulsion of the human body and the ominous glare of scientific knowledge gone awry in a society ill-prepared to meet the consequences. The cinematography and production design (by the great Stuart Craig) are breathtaking. A swinging door, partially obscuring the surgically opened corpse on a table...Mary making her way through the streets of the market, surrounded by animal viscera...the shock of a roomful of a prostitute's remains, savagely gutted by a demonic hand...rats in the sewer, swarming into the crevices of Mary's mind...the Doctor's operating theater, like a coliseum of depravity...Mary, lost in the fog.

These images were indelible to me and entertained my consciousness far more than any typical horror film could hope to. Julia Roberts, for all her trouble with the Irish accent and going against her image as "America's sweetheart", is the very picture of a haunted and ravaged soul, nearly destroyed by the abuse and poverty of her childhood and bewildered by the mysterious machinations of her homicidal employer. She lends a great deal of vulnerability and conviction to her role and carries the film in ways beyond dialogue and posturing. Not once does she flash her trademark million-dollar smile but what she gives to the film is far more valuable than glitz and in her looks and inflections reveals more on-screen than most of her other films combined.

This film won't appeal to most people. And admittedly, it does fail in so many ways that a lot of audiences will be turned off. A lot of people will definitely be bored to tears by the slow pace and "what the H*ll is happening?!?!?" quality of the narrative. But for viewers who liked Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast", Neil Jordan's "Comany of Wolves" Caleb Carr's book "The Alienist" or perhaps Ken Russell's "Gothic", this is worth a try. It should not be written off as just another big-budget Hollywood failure, because its aims, whether conscious or not, are quite different from your average thriller or period film. Approach it with an open mind, be prepared for a dark and disconcerting vision, and you might be rewarded because this film is unique, baroque, different and great.