Mary Reilly (1996)

"Mary Reilly" was a pretty big box office bomb when it was released to theaters. Seen almost twenty years later, the problems that it had back then are still apparent today. Actually, in many ways it is a well made movie. Director Stephen Frears does manage to capture the cold and bleak feel of London in the Victorian era. And the two headline stars, Julia Roberts and John Malkovich, do give perfectly fine performances. Unfortunately, the central story of the movie simply isn't that interesting. The movie has the promising idea of telling the very familiar Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story from an observer's point of view, but it's told in such a slow style and not terribly exciting or intriguing. (It also doesn't help that what Hyde does in his various rampages for the most part remains unclear.) As I indicated, the movie has some good features, but all the same it ends up being one case where the book is a lot better.

I really like the fact that the film is told from Mary Reilly's point of view. Not only hers, but everyone else's too, like the naive servants, the furious Mrs. Faraday (the brothel mistress). Mary Reilly - the character - also has a disturbing, traumatizing background story and at some point Mr. Hyde gives a pretty heavy psychological spin on it. It's never elaborated on or seems ignored even, but this suits the tone of the film. Insinuating things often hits harder than explaining them. Through some of the characters, some of the possible little script flaws (or plot holes) get solved. For instance, doesn't anybody notice that Dr. Jekyll and his assistant Mr. Hyde look very much alike? Only Hyde looks younger. Sure people notice this, but one of the servants goes about assuming that Mr. Hyde might very well be a product of Jekyll's student days. As a bright student, Jekyll was popular with the ladies. And since Jekyll never got married, if he would have had a son... in those days it was even a sin to merely speak about or suggest a thing like this.I like John Malkovich's performance a lot and it's clear that him & Stephen Frears both understood very well what they wanted to achieve here. The good doc Jekyll (whom is looked upon in high regards by his servants) is far from kosher to the bone himself (we get hints at how he conducts his research and we know he's a regular client at Mrs. Faraday's house of pleasure). While on the other hand, Mr. Hyde as the savage beast, has his scarce moments of weakness for Mary Reilly. See what I'm getting at? And when looking at it from Mary's side, she unwillingly brings out the worst in the best, and the best in the worst, so to speak. Frears & Malkovich and screenwriter Christopher Hampton added shades of gray to a classic, one too many times told story that is basically just about black & white. The film got me really interested in reading the source novel it was based on. To see how it compares the film.What else is there to like? Enough, I think. Phillipe Rousselot's wonderful cinematography. A captivating musical score by George Stenton. As much as it's a character-driven story, it does feature a handful moments of the grotesque. Glenn Close gets decapitated. Dr. Jekyll is seen on the street repeatedly kicking a little girl in the stomach. An engrossing scene that shows how slaughtered meat for consumption is being traded in the streets, followed by an analogy towards the trade of human organs for the sake of science. Not sure whom all were responsible for these sequences -- I understand that Frears, for example, never intended the film to end like it did, with that climactic transformation sequence. But said sequences are a graphic reminder of the fact that we are watching a horrific story. At any rate, I didn't think they hurt the film. They injected it with the necessary dosage of brutality.The set design is marvelous and Dr. Jekyll's laboratory - or at least the way of getting there - is cleverly structured (as it helps crafting the suspense of a certain scene in a brilliant manner). The 19th century London setting works convincing, but we don't get to see much of it. The blocking & framing makes sure we usually only see one part of a street at a time. And to add to this claustrophobic & dark notion this film has, most scenes take place on indoors sets. But also these sets are put to great use. To Mary Reilly, the doctor's mansion starts off as a safe haven, a place offering a good job and a possible better future. But it doesn't take long for this house to get infested with the evil of Mr. Hyde's presence at night. So much even, that it starts to haunt her dreams. This shift in tone happens gradually, with a slow but impeccable pace.Truth be told, to me Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde always seemed a very simplistic story to tell. At least in the classic version as it got famous. It's good source material, yes, but Frears & Hampton managed to squeeze a much more interesting film out of it. Which probably could have even been a lot better if the producing studio at the time wasn't so concerned about how it would do at the box office.Voilà, that's it for what I like about this film.Notice that I didn't mention Julia Roberts' performance. It's very down-toned, as it should be. She is there not to be noticed, her character demands it and so does the story. And while she does have a lot of screen time, she doesn't do much, so there's just not much to say about her acting. But you can always 'see' the wheels of her character's thoughts grinding, as she is the only one who's trying to fathom what's going on. From all the servants, she's the only one that knows how to read. Dr. Jekyll discovers this very early on, when he spots her reading a book in his library. This, of course, titillates the good doc's mind. And that's the point in the film, as soon as it comes, where you instantly realize this is going to take a turn for the worse. In that moment, there's a harmless thing between them that will inevitably unleash unspeakable horrors. And this 'harmless thing' even is personified throughout the whole film. It goes by the name of Mary Reilly.A very interesting adaptation. And a good film, full stop.

Sure the film is slow and it does not bear the usual features of a horror movie: no drumming music, no obvious blood spillage. This is what is so good about it! This is a fantasy about life, fear, social class, fascination about progress in medicine, and repressed sexuality in nineteenth century London. Therefore it is much more powerful and I really enjoyed the atmosphere. Acting by John Malkovich was great, as usual, and Julia Roberts delivers here a good performance playing a character quite remote from her usual roles. Excellent choice of secondary characters, all well cast in the archetypal roles society was giving at the time: there was little escape from your destiny to remain in the social classes you were born. Imagination is a good escape to frustration.One of the best versions of Jekyll and Hyde.

I believe it was Ray Pride who wrote the classic line "Mary Reilly is like a painting... only slower." Yeah, the pacing is not good. Yeah, Julia Roberts is a slight problem. But there are three more massive problems with the movie.1) Viewpoint - Telling the story of Hamlet through the eyes of Rosencranz and Gildenstern? Sounds promising! Telling the story of Oz through the eyes of the Wicked Witch? Could be interesting! Telling the story of Dr Jekyll (y'know? ...the exciting character!!) through an extremely uninteresting servant too timid to have a viewpoint? Um, no. No very much. No times a hundred. This device holds no potential.2) Malkovich - Characters in the movie are supposed to believe Malkovich is two people. But this guy can't be bothered to develop one role in a normal movie, let alone two characters here; horrible, horrible piece of casting! He gives the same contemptuous, bland, disinterested, passive-aggressive performance he's been overpaid for, for twenty years. He fails to modulate anything an actor has under his control, generating tedium on screen, and ennui in viewers.3) Familiarity - We know this story. If you haven't found a way to embroider it, you can't just prolong its only revelation (duality) for an hour and a half. Because it makes the characters seem severely dull-witted. No one has two identical-looking antagonists in their life who are never seen at the same time. Every moment is the same as the next.There's a belated spfx ending which is wildly out of place, and feels like the 25th attempt to save a movie. The combined talents of the three (Roberts, Malkovich & Frears) did not produce sparks, excitement or even a feeble puff of smoke.