Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2003)

The acting is superb, the story-line flawless, the filming beautiful and creepy. This is a 'sleeper,' and, sad to say, one which was made for television and not wide release. But any die-hard fan of Horror or Mystery can't afford to let this one go by the wayside.Think you know already the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde? I thought I did as well, and went into the film with an incredulous, nothing-else-to-watch attitude. But, as happens on occasion, my bad attitude was rewarded with surprise after surprise, and with an ending to this masterpiece that was/is deeply consoling and faith-building (to say the least).Plenty of bloodshed, classic British 'Dickensian' actors, prostitution, mob violence, brooding introspection, blackmail, self-licking lollipops, and the love of a wonderful Christian girl who should be, because of her circumstances, a hardened, angry person incapable of any feeling whatever.Don't miss this one!

This movie is very scary. 5.7 is just underrating. This is movie that will make your hairs stand on end. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. This movie has a great story line. It also has great acting. It is based on one of the best book ever. And it is one of the best movie ever. Doctor Jekyll try to get ride of his evil self. But this evil self his taking him over. This is a great horror story. Brian Pettifer is a great actor. John Hannah is great actor. He is very scary in this movie. Maurice Phillips is a great director. See this movie. This movie is a must see. Gerard Horan is a great actor. This movie is a great. See it.

I checked out this version of J&H on TV mainly because I'm a fan of John Hannah, but he was very disappointing in this role. It was his affability that made him a treat to watch in films such as 'Sliding Doors' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral', and it is that very trait that undermines his portrayal of Mr Hyde. He is completely unconvincing as a menacing, dangerous figure, and the decision not to present Mr Hyde as physically different from Dr Jekyll exacerbates this problem, although it is an interesting choice artistically and could have paid rich dividends in the hands of an actor capable of projecting a truly intimidating presence. Also, his acts of barbarity, which are obviously meant to be shocking, don't have the desired effect; this is partly because of our familiarity with the story, but more so because of the lack of any real tension or suspense of any kind. Not only does Mr Hyde not seem as menacing as he is meant to be, but Dr Jekyll never convinces us that he was a paragon of virtue in the first place, due to inadequate exposure in the screenplay as well as the underwhelming acting and direction. The performances from the supporting actors likewise feel rather wet and unconvincing.It seems to me that the theme of this film was that there truly was no difference between Jekyll and Hyde, and that it was Dr Jekyll who deliberately chose evil. This point is made repeatedly in several repetitive scenes where Dr Jekyll keeps talking about "removing impurities" and that in the end he will "contain evil", and the servant Mabel time and again discusses the fact that we are able to choose between good and evil. This might have been an interesting subject had is been dealt with more subtly. The battle between the good and evil sides of a person also became more ridiculous as it became more explicit, and the resolution seemed to be designed more for its non-existent shock value than for any faithfulness to either the tale as it was originally told or to the tale as it had been told thus far in this film.Even if, or maybe especially if you are a fan of John Hannah, stay clear of this film if you want to avoid being disappointed on all levels.

I was weary to watch this film as I am a huge fan of the RLS novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." In my opinion, there have only been two actors to properly play the character(s): John Malkovich in "Mary Reilly" and Fredric March in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." I was weary to watch this because I saw a TV movie made about 13 years ago that starred Michael Caine. It was probably the worst intrepretation of Henry and Edward that has ever been presented. Then I heard of a new version starring the drunk swindler of the "Mummy" movies. I was scared to death. Having just watched it last night, I am still trying to find a way that any Jekyll & Hyde film in the future can outdo this one. John Hannah was phenomonal. He truly makes that viewer pity and hate his Jekyll. That's right, his JEKYLL. The film makes sure that the viewers are left no easy questions to answer. While I still think that "Mary Reilly" is the best Jekyll & Hyde film to date, this version makes more complex decisions, like having no physical distinction between the two characters. It's all a state of mind. There is no Edward Hyde, just Henry Jekyll left with no inhibitions and a twist of wickedness. All of the supporting characters, especially Mabel and Sir Danvers, are beyond exceptional. The way they portray events from the novel, such as the beating of the girl, the death of a main character, Jekyll's seclusion, Hyde's nature, are done differently from the novel but effectively none the less. A few things added, most of all the relationship between Jekyll and Mabel, bring the film to a level of brilliance that other past adaptations have failed to reach. I encourage everyone to see this film as soon as possible. Now I just have to wait for the DVD.