Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

I saw this with a friend, who 'heard it was great'. What a suprise to see a really well done remake of this classic! The acting seemed to be particularly strong. Sets, although sometimes sparse, were quite appropriate. Costuming also was a strong point of the movie. I heartily recommend it!

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.)

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.

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 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.