Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

This umpteenth version of cinema's most-told story suffers from the usual limitations of videotaped productions but scores points for a literate, thoughtful script (based on the director's own stage play adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson story) and an excellent performance from its star. Clearly a labor of love for writer-producer-production designer-director-star Redfield, it overcomes its meager budget (and even some terrible acting from much of the supporting cast) with straight-faced sincerity. Redfield does an outstanding job of sharply delineating his Jekyll and Hyde into two very different personalities, perhaps one of the best such jobs in any movie version. Elena Torrez is also excellent as Hyde's plaything, frightened prostitute Claire. The time period has been bumped up to the year 1900, allowing for references to Jack the Ripper and early motion picture equipment developed by the Lumiere Brothers. The idea that Jekyll's frustrated sexual urges are the main catalyst for his experiment isn't as prominent here as in the 1932 Frederic March film, although that angle does eventually surface. Most of the character names are carried over from Stevenson's tale (Utterson, Poole, Lanyon, the Carews). Some of the changes seem a bit strange. An unnecessary new character named Parker has been added, but his presence contributes nothing to the story. Rather disappointingly, it is this insignificant peripheral character who first sees Hyde's physical transformation into Jekyll rather than the close friend and colleague of Jekyll who witnessed the shocking sight in the original story. Jekyll's fiancee's father has been rewritten as a helpless, senile old man suffering from what is today called Alzheimer's disease. Perhaps the oddest touch unique to this version is the inclusion of elements from FRANKENSTEIN. Jekyll's laboratory features crackling electrical devices, for example, in addition to a system of chains and pulleys connected to a skylight in the ceiling as in most Frankenstein lab sets. This Jekyll even uses human organs in his work and deals with thuggish body snatchers, further strengthening his connection to horror literature's other top mad doctor, and Redfield's Hyde even goes so far as to borrow a line from Mary Shelley's Monster when he promises to "be with (Jekyll) on his wedding night". The best sequence is a clever juxtaposition of Jekyll's heartbroken fiancee penning her farewell letter to him and his enthusiastic recording of the latest entry in his scientific diary. This version's Mr. Hyde (who racks up a higher body count here than in most tellings) is a fascinating villain with a commanding presence. His makeup is subtle but sufficient to make you believe the doctor's friends might fail to recognize him, especially with such very different behavior and mannerisms. He grows progressively uglier with each transformation, so he's pretty unsightly by the violent and dramatic finale. Some viewers might be put off by the unconvincing miniature work and the occasionally distracting matte lines resulting from some curious green-screen process shots (not to mention some entirely inappropriate haircuts for 1900 and at least one appallingly phony looking joke shop beard), but the intention to tell the story in a mature way and the determination to treat the source material with reverence wins out over the production's shortcomings. Good storytelling and carefully written dialogue are fairly rare commodities among 2002-era horror movies, making this DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE a refreshing viewing experience deserving of your attention.

Although I had heard good things about this shot-on-video adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson horror classic, the fact that it was the most recent version I've watched so far, that it was maligned cheapo label Alpha which had released it on DVD and that I had seen Giorgio Albertazzi's superlative TV mini-series JEKYLL (1969) fairly recently, made me postpone this viewing past its Halloween Challenge due date!

As it happens, while it may not rank anywhere near the top of the pile in JEKYLL & HYDE movies, it is lively, engaging and innovative enough to earn a respectable placement in that pantheon. Practically a one-man labor of love for writer-producer-designer-director-leading man Mark Redfield, his excellent portrayal of the two facets of the good doctor (but especially his despicable Hyde incarnation) is the film's major asset; also putting in good work is the lovely Elena Torrez as Hyde's prize streetwalker, Robert Leembruggen as Torrez's dethroned pimp and R. Scott Thompson as Jekyll's nemesis, Mordecai Carew. The sets are cleverly effective in a cheaply naïve sort of way but the inherently drab look of DV shooting and the obvious theatrical origins of the whole production work against the film's overall appeal.

Rather than making unwieldy comparisons to other superior film versions of the story, it would be more fruitful to dwell on what this film took from them and how it differs from the norm: for example, the setting is moved forward a little to after the Ripper murders like EDGE OF SANITY (1989); Jekyll keeps portraits of his ancestors in his living room (two of them being none other than John Barrymore and Fredric March!); the Hyde make-up here is more akin to Spencer Tracy's "less is more" approach than the overtly simian look of March's Hyde; like Jean-Louis Barrault in Jean Renoir's LE TESTAMENT DU DOCTEUR CORDELIER (1959) and Giorgio Albertazzi's aforementioned Italian TV version, Hyde here dies by his own hand (strangulation) rather than being shot by the police; Jekyll narrates the progress of his experiments into a dictaphone like in the Renoir film, as well as by Udo Kier in Walerian Borowoczyk's DOCTEUR JEKYLL ET LES FEMMES (1981), etc.

The fanciful liberties taken with the original text are more of a hit-or-miss affair, however: Hyde turns into Jekyll in front of an insignificant new intern rather than his skeptical rival Dr. Lanyon; Jekyll's fiancée jumps to her death off a balcony when Hyde takes over Jekyll and, as a result, the latter stops calling at her mansion; Jekyll indulges in some unexplained dealings with body snatchers(!) for his experiments; Hyde loses a finger when, in a trigger-happy mood, he despatches Leembruggen; this being set around the turn-of-the-century, Jekyll takes the time to record the outcome of his experiments on film courtesy of a cinematographic device purchased directly from the Lumiere brothers!; a bumbling Scotland Yard Inspector (who even namedrops Arthur Conan Doyle at one stage) aids Jekyll's attorney, Mr. Utterson, in investigating the disappearance of Jekyll and cornering Hyde in his hideout; an eccentric Chinaman is Hyde's landlord in his Soho abode, etc.

P.S. Redfield has just completed THE DEATH OF POE and is, apparently, in the pre-production stages of THE CRIMES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, THE MADNESS OF FRANKENSTEIN and THE TELL-TALE HEART...

The good Dr. Jekyll discovers a potion that allows him to take a walk on the wild side as the evil Mr. Hyde in this retelling of the classic Robert Lewis Stevenson story. I find it unlikely that any filmmaker will surpass the masterful 1931 version of the story starring Frederic Marsh, but this low-budget version is really quite compelling and effective. I actually prefer it to the dull 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy. Writer/director Mark Redfield, who also gives a lively performance in the showy, dual lead roles, thankfully puts the emphasis on drama and theme rather than gore, and his cast delivers. This film, which seems to be influenced by the Hammer Horror than 'Halloween,' is a very welcome relief from the trashy, unimaginative slasher films that low-budget filmmakers continually try to pawn off on us fans of the genre. I wish more filmmakers currently working in the horror genre would attempt moody period pieces. If we're lucky, perhaps Redfield and company will tackle more of horror's great novels. Frankenstein, anyone? How about Dracula? (Anything to get the taste of 'Van Helsing' out of my mouth.)

I really enjoyed Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for the acting ability, the set design, costumes, the story!!! Basically everything and I do believe it was done on very little to NO budget which is really impressive. It transfixed you into a different time era and from the first few minutes you know you are hooked. It is not the kind of movie that you feel like you can predict how it will turn out, I was always interested in what would happen next. I would love to work with the director Mark Redfield, I think I could learn a lot from him - he was the most astonishing actor. This movie is a real treat and you melt into the story completely. You will not be disappointed!!!

During my life, and I'm only 17 now, I've seen many adaptation's of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". There has been probably 20 different film version's of the story and my absolute favorite is still the Fredrik March version from 1931, probably because it was the first I ever saw. After that I've seen many good adaptation's (John Barrymore, Jack Palance, "I, Monster" starring Christopher Lee) and many bad adaptation's (Anthony Perkins in "Edge of Sanity", Michael Caine in "Jekyll and Hyde") and some that are really interestingly made (Dr. Jekyll et les femmes, Mary Reilly).

This version, starring/directed/co-produced/co-write/designed by Mark Redfield for Redfield Arts, belongs to the category of interestingly made. As a plot it doesn't bring anything new to the story that we all know well. Bit interestingly it doesn't even try to. This movie is based not only to Stevenson's story but also a stage play by Mark Redfield and Stuart Voytilla( who is co-writing and co-producing this film). Origin of the stage is well showed as there is much dialog and scene's try to stay as close to each others as possible. For all the films I've seen this is the only one that start's the story from Jekyll's friend's point of view. Hyde already is there in the beginning. But because we all know the truth about Jekyll and Hyde, Redfield doesn't wait till the end to show it, but from the middle of the movie story is shown from Jekyll/Hyde's point of view.

It's easy to see that design's by Redfield are miniatures and actors have mostly stand in front of a blue-screen. But it actually helps the film, creating own kind of a dream world, instead of exact copy of a Victorian London. Also Nalin Tanjea's music and Karl E. DeVos's camera work helps to create the atmosphere.

Actors are well chosen, mostly everyone from theater. Kosha Engler as Jekyll's fiancée and R. Scott Thompson as her arrogant brother both play's well their upper class parts. As in the role of Utterson, who is main character in original novel, they couldn't have come with the better choice than Carl Randolph. Also J.R. Lyston as comical detective and Robert Leembruggen in the double role of menacing Jack Little and curious Lord Ashton (why they didn't call him Enfield as in the book, I don't know) are doing good job. Elena Torrez in the role of prostitute Claire does wonderful job, playing both innocent victim and seductive mistress. And finally; Mark Redfield. Usually when a director also plays the leading role I think he is so full of himself (I can't help feeling that when I see Kenneth Brannagh), but Redfield not only is good director but also make's a good role as Henry Jekyll and Edward Hyde. His Jekyll is a scientist who just can't stop when it is still possible and Hyde as a true nature of him, without guilt or shame. I also love his make-up, made by Bob Yoho. The only one in cast I don't like is Jeff Miller as Parker, mainly because his role is useless. Everything he does could have been done by Dr. Lanyon (Chuck Richards).

The idea of moving film from 1886 to 1900 is fantastic. During the film we see reference to architect Bertelli, Lumiere- brothers, Arthur Conan Doyle and Jack the Ripper. Also film is full of references to other classic films. The movie starts as a combination of Curse of Frankenstein and Snow-white. And in one scene you see pictures of Richard Mansfield, Fredrik March and John Barrymore at Jekyll's desk. And I love Hyde's line taken from Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: "I will be with Jekyll at his wedding night".

So, what is wrong with this film? Plot. What works in a stage doesn't always work in film. And here it is well proved.

Still a very fine effort to re-make a classic story. I recommend to any Jekyll and Hyde fan.