Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2008)

Excellent, a Must See

Boring

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

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.

If you picked up some poo and clapped your hands together you would have more fun, Mr. Hyde lands in the dull section and never leaves it. Scott isn't perfect but his performance(s) are the best part of the film which is not saying a lot. He seems to be enjoying himself as Mr Hyde but he would look more at home in a gay bar he is just to camp to be believable and it adds little to the audience's enjoyment. Hyde isn't exactly scary, more like a mix between The Joker and Jack Sparrow but whatever the mix it does not work or come together. He also isn't monstrous, which disappointed me no end. The ending was obvious and a real let down when it could have been much more so you end up feeling flat and thinking there goes 90 minutes of my life I wont get back, there is no suspense whats so ever and Mr Hyde is about as scary as watching paint dry. The court scene is laughable. In a word AVOID.

Kindly physician Dr. Henry Jekyll (an excellent performance by Dougray Scott) is involved in experiments that unleash his more cocky and lethal serial killer alter ego Mr. Edward Hyde. Unable to repress his deadly and depraved alter ego, Jekyll turns himself over to the authorities and asks smart lawyer Claire Utterson (well played by Krista Bridges) to represent his unusual case in court. Director Paolo Barzman, working from a crafty script by Paul Margolis, smartly updates the story to a modern urban American setting, creates and sustains an appropriately somber mood, offers a neat meditation on the duality of good and evil in the human spirit, and handles the subject matter in a thoughtful, tasteful, and restrained way (the transformation scenes in particular are treated in a subtle and effective manner, with minimal make-up and a noted emphasis on Scott's exceptional acting). Scott simply excels in the juicy lead role: He brings a real frightening intensity to the supremely wicked Hyde and projects a properly tormented anguish as the guilt-ridden Jekyll. Moreover, Scott receives sturdy support from Tom Skerritt as concerned art gallery owner best friend Gabe Utterson, Danette Mackay as loyal housekeeper Mrs. Poole, and Cas Anvar as shrewd attorney D.A. McBride. Pierre Jodoin's slick cinematography gives the picture a pleasing polished look. FM Le Sieur's pulsating score hits the shuddery spot. The surprise twist ending is pretty chilling. Worth a watch.

You won't be happy with this movie if you really like the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It is the product of a big lack of creativity and respect for the original story.I think the main problem is that they obviously tried to make this movie as if the story happens for the very first time, which is very wrong to begin with because you can't expect viewers to rediscover the whole thing with such a worldwide known story.Apart from that, you really won't be satisfied either by the performance of the cast, or the "new plot" for that matter. It contains virtually no suspense, everything from the beginning until the end is very predictable and even the actors seem to have no interest at all for playing in this movie. When the movie ends, it gives you the feeling that they wanted to give you an idea of what it would have been if the events occurred to Henry Jekyll today instead of the late 19th century, but they were either incapable or they wanted it to be done very quickly (a bit like you didn't want to put too much time or effort in your school work last night, so you just applied some basic rules to it and did nothing more, hoping for a reasonable note).So since they wanted it to look like it's a new story, let me put it this way : If Robert-Louis Stevenson had not written the story in 1886, but this movie would have been the original story, you can be sure nobody would even remember the title some 120 years from now. I give it a 1/10, only because 0 is not available.