How long has it been since we've had a Jekyll & Hyde?  The last
noticeable one that comes to mind was Anthony Perkins in Edge
of Sanity where he managed to bask his unhinged visage in red light
and utter some demented (and often camp) phrases.  Well, there's a
new one around which takes a more sombre and serious tone while
managing to mix together Victorian versions of  'Beauty and the
Beast' and 'Upstairs, Downstairs.'

Christopher Hampton's script,
based upon the best-selling novel by Valerie Martin, shows the story
from the viewpoint of the housemaid Mary Reilly and manages to
include some choice dialogue along the way.  Following along, in
old-home-week fashion, are producer Norma Heyman, director
Stephen Frears, and actors John Malkovich and Glenn Close;
'Dangerous Liaisons, Part 2?' If only it had been that, I say!
                       

Talking about previous versions, one cannot avoid reflecting upon
Spencer Tracy's neglected wish to portray the evil side as resulting 
from the effect of alcohol upon the man.  'No, thank you,'
Hollywood replied and pasted on the horrible face once again.  
A small thing to show the duality of man, I think. 

John Malkovich, however, doesn't use any heavy latex masks for his
conversion; just off with the grey stubble and on with the black wig
(which I can't help disliking, as it makes me think more of the 
wonderfully complex Vicomte de Valmont than the horribly simple Hyde),
add a limp and, presto, we're there.
Take a look at this quote from "THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR HYDE"(P.  54):
 "I was still so engaged when, in one of my more wakeful 
moments, my eye fell upon my hand.
Now, the hand of Henry Jekyll(as you have often remarked) 
was professional in shape  and size ; it was large, firm, 
white and comely. But the hand which I now saw, clearly enough 
in the yellow light of a mid-london morning, lying half shut on 
the bed-clothes, was lean, corded, knuckly, of a dusky pallor, 
and thickly shaded with a swart growth of hair. 
It was the hand of Edward Hyde."
The reason I brought this in is that it seems Eddie Hyde in 
this flick has more perfectly manicured hands than the good doctor 
himself. So not even the outside of the man shows his evil manner. 

I can't think of anyone who might have fit the mold of both Jekyll 
and Hyde in quite the same way, unless you consider 
Peter Fonda.  On the other hand, Dennis Hopper wouldn't have been 
a bad choice at all.  Can't you just see him throwing Miss Reilly 
onto the OR table and screaming, 'Do it for daddy?' That would have 
been a lot of fun! But he probably wouldn't have brought the same 
depth into the troubled Doctor.
But back to the matter at hand: Malkovich, as Jekyll, 
portrays an intelligent, tormented, Faustian (and incredibly sexy) 
doctor, and, as Hyde, the devil-may-care, go-to-the-devil, devilishly 
roguish, and lustfully vengeful associate(also very sexy, but in a 
more "take-me-right-here-and-now-I’m-hot" kindda way).  Somehow the 
intensity of these two characters oddly cancel each other out and, 
as a result, real intensity hardly ever manifests itself(one 
time it gets very close to being really intense, and that is 
in the doctor’s bedroom when Reilly is being chased by Hyde, but 
Roberts blows this, as well as the other moments of intended 
intensity).  
But in all fairness, Roberts manages an acceptable brogue as she 
surpasses her servant's role in aiding her master while being 
inextricably bound, despite her innocent fervor, to the darker side 
of life.

However, the moments are rare that reveal the
deep-seated hunger and inescapable attraction that lead her to her
deeds.  All the elements are in the film, but they never come 
together completely enough to form the whole.  Nevertheless, it's 
an enjoyable film.  And it's backed up by a solid cast 
of (real) Englishmen.

The production design for this edition of the shilling shocker is
meticulously created.  It has an almost overwhelming aroma of
Victoriana, except that it's too perfect and too romantic.  
One cannot help but wonder whether the master of the 
house, Jekyll, would have been as hesitant to take Reilly into 
his bed as John portrays it in the film, it was, after all, 
a well-known fact that house maids were fair game for 
men of higher society.

Glenn Close steals the day as the fabulously gaudy and garrulous
Mrs. Farraday.

Mary Reilly is definately one of Roberts' worst.  

The following lines weren't written by me:
After watching this movie, I was overwhelmed with a sense of 
depression.  The movie is depressing and dark, but is filmed 
in a way that makes it seem normal.  There is fog everywhere and 
no color anywhere, except for the dark red blood.  But that's 
not what depressed me.  I didn't really like the film, 
but I was fascinated with it.  The Jekyll and Hyde story is 
famous, but I never read it.  Watching this movie, which puts 
it in a different point of view, I don't think I want to 
read the book.  It's dark and broody, but has a tone that 
disturbed me.


This, however, was written by me as well:

Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is the main character of this movie, 
instead of Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich).  The movie is seen 
through her eyes.  She is uneducated yet likes to read, 
curious but not nosy. So why make a movie like this?  
I'm not sure, because it didn't do well at the box-office.  
Maybe it's because the producers wanted to retell the story 
in a way that it has never been told before. But if it ain't 
broke why fix it?
Mary Reilly is a simple maid, who has a hidden past that 
Jekyll is very interested in.  He asks her about the scars 
on her arms and neck, but she doesn't want to tell him. 
Until she realizes that this may be what gets him interested 
in her as a lady instead of a maid, only she doesn’t know that 
he already is… This makes him even more curious. 
After this he sees that she might not fear what he’s 
become at all, because she’s been to hell and back with her 
father, so maybe his Hyde charachter will be able to get 
to first base with her.

What he has become is two things: Mr. Hyde, who is the evil 
side of Jekyll, and her father.  
Mr. Hyde actually represents the bad side in everyone(or 
so it’s intended to look in the classic novel by Stevenson).  
Jekyll drank a potion that released him.  Reilly's father 
drank alcohol which released his evil side.  
When her father was drunk, he would beat her and put her 
in a small closet with rats. Hyde also indicates that it 
may have gone even further between Reilly and her father, 
during their first conversation in the library. 


 

He says " Men will chatter amongst themselves, but what I 
wasn't quite able to figure out was how far it might have 
gone between your father and yourself? Didn't you look 
forward to them sometimes, the nights when your mother was out 
working?" Maybe it wasn't only psychological maltreatment, but 
physical as well? Although it's impossible to know as the movie 
doesn't reveal this clearly...
Her mother took her away from home one day, but Reilly was still 
emotionally destroyed by her father.  

This is all very good and interesting, but somehow something 
was missing, maybe it was too dark for my tastes after all, 
or maybe it was just the fact that I got distracted by 
Roberts’s clumsy attempt to be a real actress. Some scenes 
were too dark and I guess they were supposed to be, but at least 
let us see the actors' faces(And it wouldn’t have hurt the 
film one bit to show a little more of John Malkovich!).  
The only thing that saved this movie was Malkovich and the story.  
I didn't think Roberts was right for the role, because 
I don’t think she has the ability to carry such a large 
piece of a dramatic movie. 
Glenn Close also had a major role in saving the movie, but she 
was killed off and didn't have much of a part anyway.  

Malkovich portrayed both characters equally well, though 
Jekyll seemed more right for him. The only thing that differentiated 
the two was facial hair. But he made the Jekyll character 
more caring and nice, while the Hyde character was mean and selfish.
But the plot of the movie helped nicely. It allowed Hyde to be 
mysterious because we didn't see it from his point of 
view (I think it could have been interesting to have seen 
it just a little through the eyes of Hyde, or maybe 
even through the eyes of Jekyll, so that we’d see the actual 
process of change going on. It just gets a tad bit tedious 
only having one point of view in a film as complex as this one.).

Mary Reilly is rated R. The Gothic scenes are dark and eerie, and 
there is a lot of violence and gore. One terrifying scene is 
subtle(not standard horror stuff), but sickening, in which the cook 
skins an eel. 
There are many scenes like this, including one where a rat 
has its intestines lying next to it. But to be honest I’d 
have loved to see some more of Hyde’s terrible actions, 
instead of just hearing half a sentence about them from Jekyll.
This is definately not for children, but may interest the type 
of person who likes this kind of movie. I'm exactly that type of 
person, so I loved the film to pieces!.

I myself think this film(and the book by Robert Louis Stevenson) 
is absolutely great, and I enjoy watching/reading it very much. 
The only problem is, as I’ve stated above, the total lack 
of "letting go" in both the part of Malkovich and Roberts. 
I sat awaiting some sort of sexual action after the dream 
scene( Hyde/Reilly), and would have been more than satisfied 
with a simple kiss.

I kept hoping throughout the entire length of this film 
that Reilly would realize how she felt about the Doctor, 
and that he’d do the same, and they’d get on with their 
business, because I think it’d have spiced it up a little.
The text used in this is from my assignment on the Jekyll/Hyde 
theme, please don’t copy it without my consent.

This The King's MITIM Webring site is owned by Christina Pedersen. Want to join the The King's MITIM Webring ?
[Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites]

Seen byWebbies