Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Even more so than FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA, screen versions of Stevenson's THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE are based on other screen versions of the same story. There is no evidence anyone has gone back to see what was in the original story (or even what its title was). This version assumes that Jekyll does not change physically, but only mentally. John Hannah is particularly uninteresting in the role of the schizoid doctor. Major characters are invented and thrown into the plot. With all this liberty to invent Martyn Hesford should have been able to improve on the story, but does not. The period feel is weak as if insufficient research and checking was done. (Jekyll refers to "Sir Danvers," not "Sir Henry.")

This 2003, T.V version, brings this dark tale bang up to date. Starring John Hannah, it's the most brutal version yet produced. The creation of the Victorian Era is both honest and truthful. The film chiefly deals with the vice, crime and downright seediness of these subversive times. David Warner is the fine back-up.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of the most overplayed, excessively adapted stories ever and by this stage I can confidently say I'm burnt out, but this is actually a passable attempt.

A fairly loyal adaptation of Robert Louis Stevensons classic tale of science gone wrong it tackles many subject matters that leave you thinking after the credits have rolled.

Many have speculated that it's in fact a tale of mental illness, others believe it to be Christian propaganda despite Stevenson himself being an atheist.

With a fantastic cast including John Hannah, veteran and iconic villianous character actor David Warner and Kellie Shirley (Who many of you will know from Eastenders of all things) nobody can fault the performances on display here. It looks fantastic, it's well crafted and near flawlessly written.

So what went wrong? Well I think the finale was a tad hammed up by Hannah, he's a great actor but he seemed to run out of steam here. To make matters worse again this is a ridiculously over played story, how many times must we see the struggle between Jekyll & Hyde?

Regardless for fans of this timeless classic this is one of the better versions. For me nothing comes close to the television mini series Jekyll (2007).

The Good:

Very well made

Fantastic cast

The Bad:

Hannah can't quite pull off Hyde

Seen it considerably too many times

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

David Warner is a movie stealer

I checked out this version of J&H on TV mainly because I'm a fan of John Hannah, but he was very disappointing in this role. It was his affability that made him a treat to watch in films such as 'Sliding Doors' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral', and it is that very trait that undermines his portrayal of Mr Hyde. He is completely unconvincing as a menacing, dangerous figure, and the decision not to present Mr Hyde as physically different from Dr Jekyll exacerbates this problem, although it is an interesting choice artistically and could have paid rich dividends in the hands of an actor capable of projecting a truly intimidating presence. Also, his acts of barbarity, which are obviously meant to be shocking, don't have the desired effect; this is partly because of our familiarity with the story, but more so because of the lack of any real tension or suspense of any kind. Not only does Mr Hyde not seem as menacing as he is meant to be, but Dr Jekyll never convinces us that he was a paragon of virtue in the first place, due to inadequate exposure in the screenplay as well as the underwhelming acting and direction. The performances from the supporting actors likewise feel rather wet and unconvincing.

It seems to me that the theme of this film was that there truly was no difference between Jekyll and Hyde, and that it was Dr Jekyll who deliberately chose evil. This point is made repeatedly in several repetitive scenes where Dr Jekyll keeps talking about "removing impurities" and that in the end he will "contain evil", and the servant Mabel time and again discusses the fact that we are able to choose between good and evil. This might have been an interesting subject had is been dealt with more subtly. The battle between the good and evil sides of a person also became more ridiculous as it became more explicit, and the resolution seemed to be designed more for its non-existent shock value than for any faithfulness to either the tale as it was originally told or to the tale as it had been told thus far in this film.

Even if, or maybe especially if you are a fan of John Hannah, stay clear of this film if you want to avoid being disappointed on all levels.

I have seen one of the Jekyll-and-Hyde films so far. But this one is much better since it shows Hyde as he was described in the novel: as a person that seems different looking although there is no obvious malformation present (like it was overdone in the "League of the extraordinary gentlemen" and also in the movie from 1931). John Hannah demonstrates perfectly here that the evil does not have to be connected to a horrible look. He did a great job working out the psychological dark side of this tragic figure. The changes from Jekyll to Hyde were brilliantly filmed. For everybody who is interested in the novel this film is certainly a must-see.