Mary Reilly

A housemaid (Julia Roberts) falls in love with Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich) and his darkly mysterious counterpart, Mr. Hyde (John Malkovich).

Stephen Frears, an excellent director, cast two very big names and put them in a twist of the Jekyll and Hyde story. This is not a horror tale, and the violence and gore are kept to a minimum. In some sense it is a love story, but only in the most general of terms. More accurately, it is a woman who is loyal to her employer.

The strangest thing about this is how little they tried to make the two halves look different. When Hyde comes out, he is still obviously Malkovich. How can they not notice? Someone remarks that they bear a resemblance, but it is much more than that.

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.

Mary Reilly is a great film to watch on a rainy afternoon. Often criticized as boring and a low point in Julia Roberts career, I found it to be a great Gothic story. While I can understand and see why people were put to sleep by the film, I think it's a refreshing change of pace from the standard popcorn flick that is only interested in being the number 1 film at the box office Monday morning. John Malkovich turns in a great performance of the Jekyll/Hyde character, and Glenn Close steals the few scenes she's in as a Madame of a brothel. Julia Roberts plays against type as a dour chambermaid, and I think that's what put off so many people. Obviously, most people like their Julia flashing her now $20 million dollar smile. I say, "good for you for trying something different." If you haven't seen Mary Reilly, watch it on the next rainy day and enjoy it.

My grade: 8 out of 10

I am glad to see a few other reviewers calling this "underrated." I figured I was the only person who actually liked this film. All the national critics sure hated this low-key re-telling of Jekyll and Hyde.

The muted colors with the grey overtones caught my eye and were very interesting to observe. Julia Roberts also was interesting to watch: no makeup, no smile, just sad, somber looks yet still appealing. Despite critics' comments to contrary, I found this an intelligent adaption of the famous story.

People don't care for subtly in films anymore. They want in-your-face smash- ups, gore, violent contrasts....and a lot of it. This movie is extremely low-key and subtle, although there are some bloody scenes.

I have to admit that I agree with one criticism, that it's hard to believe Roberts' character "Mary Reilly" would not recognize Jekyll from Hyde (played by John Malkovich) when he didn't change facial appearances! And, yes, the film, generally- speaking, is a real downer, a depressing tale.

Yet, for some odd reason, despite the above paragraph, I recommend the film to people who enjoy slower films and subtle suspense, even if they have to suspend a little believability. I thought it was oddly fascinating.

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.