Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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...

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.

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 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.

Although I am a horror fan, I looked upon the arrival of yet another telling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde with a certain degree of trepidation. However, I must confess I was pleasantly surprised. This version was shot on video, but the production compensated with the use of nice locations and imaginative sets. The filmmakers were smart to stay away from outdoor daylight exteriors. (Here comes my rant.) Outdoor daylight exteriors are the Achilles heel of the current flood of video features. They always bring the cinematic look of the film down to the level of the evening news. The local evening news at that! When I watch a movie I want images that will transport me somewhere, not ugly reality. That's my major pet peeve about the so-called "video revolution." Up yours, Dogma! (Now back to the review.) The performances were pretty good throughout. Mark Redfield, who also wrote and directed, plays Hyde with a bit of a twinkle in his eye rather than as a straightforward monster. Carl Randolph gives a good understated performance as Jekyll's loyal but suspicious friend. Elena Torrez is sufficiently seductive as the prostitute who tempts Jekyll and brings out the beast in Hyde. J.R. Lyston is also good as the somewhat comic Scotland Yard inspector who finds Hyde's murders almost as destructive to the Yard's image as those blasted stories by that Conan Doyle fellow. The film is more loyal to the Stevenson story than many of its predecessors, but it does update the time to the turn of the last century. This allows for the introduction of the Lumiere Brothers and a novel ending. I caught this film at a horror festival. I look forward to buying a copy.