Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

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.

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.

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.

Whatever happened to the classics? That's what I always hear from true movie connoisseurs. Well with the DVD release of Mark Redfield's version of DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE (Alpha Video), we have a new-age classic ... a throwback if you will. I myself, had the good fortune to see a screening of it in Baltimore over a year ago, and I left the theater feeling invigorated.

Redfield and fellow producer/writer Stuart Voytilla tell this tale, quite frankly, the way that Robert Louis Stevenson, would have told it, through the medium of film. Shot in classic locations, with an extremely high production value for the budget it was shot on, the film is technically superior.

And Redfield shows a real screen presence in the dual title roles, not to mention that his direction adds a little something to it. He also throws in a little FRANKENSTEIN-type undertones about man-playing-God and it really works in the picture. I don't want to give anything away, so I would leave the onus on classic film fans and fans of the horror genre alike to check this movie out.

While it may not pack the 'typical' Hollywood cast - which is about the only bad thing I can say about it - it does not disappoint in the delivery. But, hey, don't take my word for it. If you're a movie connoisseur, see it for yourself.

And hopefully, it can provide an answer to your long-standing question: 'whatever happened to the classics?' That's because it's a new-age classic, a throwback if you will ... one worthy of investing the small fee to buy it or rent it.