Doctor Jekyll

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 can't be the only one who thinks that Scott Chambers bears an uncanny resemblance to Barry Keoghan? Anyway, after a career in petty theft and drugs - and with a seriously ill daughter - "Rob" (Chambers) finds himself in front of the rather imperious "Sandra" (Lindsay Duncan) and her boss "Nina" (Eddie Izzard). The latter is looking for some help around her huge stately home and for some reason she takes a bit of a shine to the young man. After a shaky start, the two start to become friends and he is promised the funds to see his daughter "Ari" gets the treatment she needs. Snag? Well "Rob" has to help her out with a rather monstrous request. Has he got what it takes? The first twenty minutes of this are actually quite good - Duncan is fine as the over-bearing assistant and there's a bit of chemistry between Izzard and her new-found friend. Quickly though, there emerge a few silly sub-plots and, indeed, plot holes before an ending that I felt really quite disappointing. To be fair, Dan Kelly-Mulhern has tried to do something a bit different with this Stevenson story - never an easy thing when it's already been pretty much done to death - but this just runs out of steam by the half way mark and thereafter is all a bit daft. It's an OK watch for ninety minutes, but you won't recall it a week afterwards and there's really nothing remotely scary to worry about either.

I went into this today with a blank mind, thinking okay I will give Eddie a chance and boy was I disappointed.

Firstly the movie plays like a teen drama more than a hammer horror movie.

There's no horror in this movie to even count on one hand.

Now there was nothing wrong with the acting or the story but it played more on the side of a teen drama than a horror film, which was a huge mistake.

This movie could have been so good with the same cast if the movie was done better.

So all in all this film is not worth seeing and if this happens to be hammer's movie come back, we'll they have played a bad hand.

Give this a miss and go and seek the older hammer movies if you want a good horror film.

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.

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.