Une réimagination moderne de l'infâme Dr Jekyll, tiré du roman de Robert Louis Stevenson de 1886, L'étrange affaire du Dr Jekyll et de M. Hyde.Une réimagination moderne de l'infâme Dr Jekyll, tiré du roman de Robert Louis Stevenson de 1886, L'étrange affaire du Dr Jekyll et de M. Hyde.Une réimagination moderne de l'infâme Dr Jekyll, tiré du roman de Robert Louis Stevenson de 1886, L'étrange affaire du Dr Jekyll et de M. Hyde.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 2 nominations au total
Avis à la une
A well-crafted picture from director Joe Stephenson and writer Dan Kelly-Mulhern with Eddie Izzard, Scott Chambers and Lindsay Duncan selling the intriguing premise at the top of the card.
Certain aspects fall flat far from where they could reach and the ending comes around in too much haste, but when it comes to selling itself, Doctor Jekyll does exactly what it says on the tin.
I's an elegantly-shot picture with a terrific central location, solid performances, a strong score, plenty of keen enthusiasm and ideas to distinguish it from the pack of dime-a-dozen adaptations.
If you go in expecting jump-scares and screaming histrionics you may be disappointed, but if you're looking for a spooky, mysterious and atmospheric genre feature then this'll certainly tick your boxes.
Certain aspects fall flat far from where they could reach and the ending comes around in too much haste, but when it comes to selling itself, Doctor Jekyll does exactly what it says on the tin.
I's an elegantly-shot picture with a terrific central location, solid performances, a strong score, plenty of keen enthusiasm and ideas to distinguish it from the pack of dime-a-dozen adaptations.
If you go in expecting jump-scares and screaming histrionics you may be disappointed, but if you're looking for a spooky, mysterious and atmospheric genre feature then this'll certainly tick your boxes.
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 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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesCoincidentally, the actor who plays the original Dr. Jekyll (in a flashback) is named Jonathan Hyde.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Doctor Jekyll?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Доктор Джекилл
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 600 000 £GB (estimé)
- Montant brut mondial
- 21 524 $US
- Durée1 heure 30 minutes
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant