The Worst Film Ever

Strong and Moving!

Great Film overall

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 is yet another version of Robert Louis Steveson's THE STRANGE CASE OF DOCTOR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE and if truth be told this is possibly the most bland version you will see . It's inoffensive containing the sort of material that'd make it through he censors of a dull daytime TV soap . It is as uninvolving as it is inoffensive . Director Paolo Barzman doesn't have a big enough budget to do the story justice and much of the story is told in medium close up and we get some very choppy editing . When Doctor Jekyll relates a story about being in the Amazon we don't get an establishing shot of wild untamed majestic shots of the tropical rain forest we get a close up of a fire and a couple of Oriental extras giving the impression that it was filmed in someone's fireside living room . Hey I wonder if ....Scottish actor Dougray Scott plays the title character and he's somewhat ill cast in the role . His American accent is totally unconvincing as Dr Henry Jekyll and seems to think Mr Hyde is a bit of a camp homosexual , honestly the villain comes across as some pantomime dame and will have you booing and hissing and throwing popcorn at the screen . It's not even bad enough to be entertaining high camp , just ... oh what's the word ? ... oh bland . That's the word I'm looking forThat said I did see Dougray Scott in an episode of DOCTOR WHO a couple of weeks ago and his performance was probably the best thing about the episode so one wonders if he could be a ready made replacement for Matt Smith once he leaves the role . At the very worst Scott giving a bad performance as the Doctor would be ..... bland

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.

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.