An Exercise In Nonsense

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

This movie is filmed so beautifully. The costumes, the mood, its lovely. But this movie is a bore. And possibly the most cringe-worthy part of it is Julia Roberts' absolutely hideous impression of a British accent. WHY WHY WHY the director didn't stop the bleeding is beyond me. Every time she opens her mouth you're transported right back to modern times. It completely takes you out the film and the actress out of the character. Really Hollywood, we will suspend disbelief. If the actor can't pull it off DON'T do it. I love Julia Roberts as much as everyone else but this isn't where her acting strengths lie.

recreation of Victorian atmosphere. version of old story. inspired cast. ivory skin of central character. and John Malkovich. a film like a visit in museum. each piece on perfect place, each step as key for a treasure. strange flavor, cold touch. and air of love story. maybe, it is not convincing. but it is beautiful. and delicate like a silk butterfly. it is not very realistic but charm of each performance is necessary brick for a not really bad building. it is a kind of travel and fascination of viewer is secret satisfaction to know the truth at beginning. sure, Julia Roberts is not extraordinary but her work is correct. and this fact is important. like sign of a meeting between two fascinating actors.

I initially came across this film when I found out it was at one stage planned to be a Winona Ryder/Tim Burton vehicle, and I have to sat I was so impressed by it that it is now one of my favorite films.With a bit of research I got the idea that this was a bad stage in Julias career, but I have to say I have never seen her better than she is in this. Her performance is just astounding, she has thus innocence and vulnerability that I never thought I'd see coming from her, she embodies the character extremely well, so well that it would have been a crime to see anyone else in the role. John Malkovich ramps up the creepy factor in this movie, his performance is also just stellar, he is truly terrifying in the scenes where he is Jekyll.Another thing I like is that this is such a great retelling of the Jekyll/ Hyde story, it's the best one I've ever seen, I think one big advantage it has is that its told from an onlookers perspective and not from an unknown or first person perspective.The cinematography is wonderful, the constant shade of grey and the overlying layer of fog both help to create the dark and moody atmosphere. I think it's definitely a movie fans of the story would enjoy and also people who aren't so familiar with it.Top notch Gothic horror that deserves to be seen....

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.