अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA modern re-imagining of the infamous Dr. Jekyll from Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr HydeA modern re-imagining of the infamous Dr. Jekyll from Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr HydeA modern re-imagining of the infamous Dr. Jekyll from Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 2 नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाCoincidentally, the actor who plays the original Dr. Jekyll (in a flashback) is named Jonathan Hyde.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is Doctor Jekyll?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Доктор Джекилл
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- £6,00,000(अनुमानित)
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $21,524
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 30 मिनट
- रंग
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें