Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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.)

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.

This version of Jekyll and Hyde has its origins in a stage production of the novel. This is part of the films flaw in that the acting seems to have been pulled right off the stage rather than coming from real life. This shouldn't put you off from seeing this movie since its quite good and is possibly one of the finer adaptations of the story. Sticking closer to the book, or so it seems, it tries to unravel the weird story with Jeykll and Hyde taking up less of the limelight. This is two friends trying to hash out whats going on. Its a refreshing take on the tale and adds nice shading to everything thats going on. Out side of the stage acting that some people use this film really has no flaws other than a bit too much of the chroma-key or blue screen effects that it uses to supplement its backgrounds. There's nothing wrong with it, but it seems to have been over used sand at times I felt like I was watching a video game rather than a movie.

Ultimately this is a film to put on your must see list especially if you want to see a good version of a literary classic.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2002)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Mark Redfield produced, wrote, directed and stars in this latest updating of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story. In case you've never heard of it, the respectable Henry Jekyll (Redfield) begins to experiment with a potion, which eventually turns him into the murderous Edward Hyde who then sets his violent ways on a prostitute (Elena Torrez). If you're sitting out there wondering why in the world we need yet another adaptation of this often-filmed story then rest assured that we really don't. If you've seen as many versions of this tale as I have you're probably wondering if this one is worth bothering with and I'd give it a pretty big recommendation because you can't help but admire what Redfield was able to do with such a small budget and apparently some production problems when the original backer bowed out of the project. On the whole this is a handsomely produced version as it's obvious there's a lot of care going on in the film. The screenplay does a good job at trying to show us new things that were left out of previous versions and I admire that they tried to tell the story through the view point of the lawyer Utterson. I'd be lying if I said the filmmakers stuck to this 100% of the time but it at least gives us a somewhat different view of the events. The direction by Redfield is another thumbs up because he has no problems telling the story and it's certainly well crafted and paced. Redfield, once again, does a very good job in the lead role and I really loved how differently he played the two men. I really enjoyed how laid back he made the Jekyll character without making him boring or too much of a good guy. On the other hand he also does a very good job with Hyde making him an evil character but slowly building up that evilness. Another major plus that the film has going for it is the performance by Torrez who is simply divine in the role. There's no question that she's easy on the eyes but unlike so many low-budget movies she also has an acting ability. I thought she was very believable in the part and I really enjoyed the sexuality that she brought to the role without over doing it as well as being so vulnerable. The rest of the supporting players are all very good in their parts, which certainly isn't the norm for this type of film. I do think the film's biggest flaw is that it runs ten-minutes short of two hours, which is just way too long simply because we've seen this story so many times that the viewer is going to know all the twists and turns that are going on.

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.