Leofwine_draca This Canadian TV movie update of the classic horror story attempts to retell the story in a modern setting but ends up looking like a derivative episode of CSI meets LAW & ORDER. The only thing halfway good about this production is the presence of Scottish actor Dougray Scott playing the maladjusted scientist, but even Scott can't make headway in this dog's dinner of a production. There's no budget here, so most scenes take place in cheap office settings or dingy rooms. Far too much time is spent on boring courtroom drama at the climax, followed by a ridiculously predictable 'twist' ending which everyone will see coming a mile off.There's no gore or action to speak of. Hyde kills a couple of hookers in some badly disjointed scenes while his transformations are performed without the aid of any make up or special effects (aside from some creepy contact lenses in a few instances). It relies totally on Scott to act the part, but he just can't overcome the shortcomings of the brain-dead script to make this worth watching. It's one of those films where nothing happens and the only familiar faces (including Tom Skerritt as Jekyll's buddy) look distinctly embarrassed by their appearance.

jacobjohntaylor1 The Story of Dr.Jekyll and Mr Hyde in general is good. The books is great. There have been some great films based on it. Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde (1931) is a great film. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1920) is a great film. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1941) is a great film. This one is very disappointing. The story line is awful. And it has an awful ending. It is very slow. The hole thing became a court room drama trying to prove that Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde are not same person. It was based on the book but it did not say very true to it. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1912) is great. But this is pooh pooh. This is a big stinky fart. Don't wast your money.

Mattphesto As a borderline schizoid and fan of the original short story I'm always up for perusing any new J&H material. After catching this curio on Sky I felt compelled to comment. The usual themes of duality and the nature of guilt and morality are all present and correct. As is usual in most screen re-imaginings of Stephenson's tale an obligatory love-interest is tacked on in the form of a pretty female lawyer with whom Hyde confides. There's no real gratuitous violence or gore here, the horror seems to be attempting to stem from the psychological, unfortunately this never really gels together. As such, we're left with a fairly entertaining if unnecessary and understated (there's no real physical changes apparent between Henry & Edward) version of the familiar story. There's a fairly feeble 'twist' ending that anyone not recovering from recent cranial surgery should see coming at least a couple of furlongs off.5/10. P.S: For a vastly superior contemporary take on the tale viewers could do much worse than check out the recent BBC mini series 'Jekyll' starring James Nesbitt. It's available on DVD and well worth a watch.

dcmsn I love how people say the transformation was good when there is little transformation from Dr. to Hyde. All they did here was have the actor twitch his head and act stiff and make bizarre faces like he was constipated. So all you have is the worst remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde!The one BIG mistake this film makes is when the helper of DR. Jekyll testifies, it doesn't make any sense just like most of this slow moving farce.I gave it a 2 instead of 1 cause of the yellow lights that were used during the night scenes (HPS Bulbs In the Light Fixtures) just sheer brilliance.