Robert J. Maxwell It's a well-known story, the kind that made most sense during England's Victorian period. An innocent and respectable man somehow lets his savage unconscious loose and pays for it in the end. Dorian Gray served the same purpose for Oscar Wilde in "The Portrait of Dorian Gray." It took Freud to explain it to the public.This version of Jeykll and Hyde departs considerably from the novella as I remember it from years ago. All of the filmed versions do to some extent but this one is at the farthest remove.As Jeykll/Hyde, John Hannah gives it everything he's got but is somewhat undone by a confusing script that wanders around and covers not just gauche behavior -- stomping little girls on the street and erratic almost to the point of being presidential -- but several murders, purposeful in that Jeykll or Hyde is intentionally committing them, not just in a fit of pique, but to preserve the secrecy surrounding his, er, peculiar problem.There's no make up involved in the transition from one persona to another. Sometimes, as when angrily confronting the politically ambitious Sir Danvers Carew, one is reminded of the anecdote about the snooty critic taken to see one of the early films of the story and being told that the actor was playing the principal part. "I see. Which one is he now?" Then again, there are times when Hyde actually appears on screen opposite Jeykll and the two argue, with Hannah's Hyde sneering and ranting while Hannah's Jeykll cowers in the corner.If you can forget about the stark original and bull your way through the obfuscating obstacles, it's still a pretty good story. At least there are whores involved instead of Spencer Tray's show girls.

Boba_Fett1138 The story if 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' by Robert Louis Stevenson is already a good, solid one, with powerful and relevant themes in it, on its own. Yet this TV movie chooses to alter the story with as the end result, a movie with a story that lacks a real point or a good main plot line.The movie mixes several elements from other previous Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies (even from "Mary Reilly") but yet it fails to use the most interesting and intriguing elements. The story isn't always interesting enough to follow because of this but in this case that's not just only the scripts fault.Also of course a big problem of the movie is that it has a typical made-for-TV look, which is never a really positive thing. The costumes and sets are cheap looking and far from impressive. I also really didn't liked the movie its visual style. Judging by this movie I have the feeling that the cinematographer thinks of himself that he is brilliant. He uses artistic positions and lighting with as a result that every sequences feels fabricated and planned out. It makes the movie, story and its characters feel very distant because of this. Also the directing isn't top-class. The movie is filled with a couple of overdone sequences, which mainly feature some slow-motion effects to make the movie feel extra artistic. The end result is the opposite of what the movie makers tried to achieve. Also the musical score is typical simple made-for-TV stuff, which means that's its more distracting and irritating, than that it adds to the atmosphere of the movie.I at first had trouble seeing John Hannah in the main part as Jekyll/Hyde. I don't know, after his role in the two Mummy movies I have difficulties taking him serious in serious roles, especially when he plays the main character. But once I got accustomed to seeing him playing the Jekyll/Hyde character he was alright. It's too bad that the material and crew he had to work with wasn't the best. Most of the other characters feel like they were just thrown into the story to fill it up. None of them serves a significant enough purpose in the story. Also the actors that portray them aren't the most charismatic or talented persons around, which also certainly obviously doesn't help the movie and story.The movie tries to be different in its style but especially its story. This movie basically is a free interpretation of the classic 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' that abandons lots of themes and elements from the novel. The struggle between the good and evil side of a person is brought well and effective to the screen but its too bad that the rest of the story and its alterations work out far from well. The movie lacks a good main plot and purpose. It makes this version of the Jekyll and Hyde story a bit or a redundant one that adds far too little interesting to the classic story.An original but not interesting enough made-for-TV interpretation of the famous story.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

goebelhe I have seen one of the Jekyll-and-Hyde films so far. But this one is much better since it shows Hyde as he was described in the novel: as a person that seems different looking although there is no obvious malformation present (like it was overdone in the "League of the extraordinary gentlemen" and also in the movie from 1931). John Hannah demonstrates perfectly here that the evil does not have to be connected to a horrible look. He did a great job working out the psychological dark side of this tragic figure. The changes from Jekyll to Hyde were brilliantly filmed. For everybody who is interested in the novel this film is certainly a must-see.

Mark R. Leeper Even more so than FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA, screen versions of Stevenson's THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE are based on other screen versions of the same story. There is no evidence anyone has gone back to see what was in the original story (or even what its title was). This version assumes that Jekyll does not change physically, but only mentally. John Hannah is particularly uninteresting in the role of the schizoid doctor. Major characters are invented and thrown into the plot. With all this liberty to invent Martyn Hesford should have been able to improve on the story, but does not. The period feel is weak as if insufficient research and checking was done. (Jekyll refers to "Sir Danvers," not "Sir Henry.")