First and most important, the film is solid and entertaining and Scott gives the performance of his life.Most interesting to this reviewer was how ambitious this production was. In the first decade of the millennium, the Canuck industry was still trying to find itself. Soul searching.Ultimately the industry would decide it was easier and more profitable to aim for niche product other producers had avoided.Which is why (and I have said this before) 90% of the X-Mas movies that appear in late fall are Canadian, and without shame or apology.(There is even a 100% Canuck version of Miracle on 34th Street, but that is another review entirely).Canada is also where franchises go to die, which is why you might see might see version 4 or 5 of a film series you did not know HAD a 4 or 5..? Canada to the rescue.So in 2008 we had a rare in stance of Canada perhaps getting too ambitious for its own good, and this is the result. For Canadians, it is almost comic to see Toronto pretending to be a US city -- again -- and reporters carrying mikes where the call letters start with "W".That said, the film is solid. Skerritt picked up a paycheck for doing only a few scenes and Krista Bridges -- an actress you would ordinarily only see in the aforesaid X-Mas knockoffs -- also does a solid job.Recommended.

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.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2008) * 1/2 (out of 4) Modern updating of the Robert Louis Stevenson's novel has a serial killer stalking the people of Boston. It turns out to be the respected Dr. Jekyll (Dougray Scott) who while on a trip overseas came up with a potion and when used on himself it turned him into the murderous Mr. Hyde. With the help of a friend (Tom Skerritt) Jekyll is able to get a lawyer (Krista Bridges) who tries to understand him. I've seen well over a dozen versions of this classic novel and I must say this is the first one where Hyde kisses Jekyll on the mouth. I'm not one who is against familiar things being changed around as the London setting has been moved to Boston and it takes place during modern times. I think this could have been used to the film's benefit but instead it just bogs down the story even more as we get silly special effects of Jekyll looking at his monitors before turning into Hyde. This movie offers up a few interesting ideas about the good/evil side of the character but it's all pretty much wasted. I really didn't care for the direction because it seems like Barzman was trying too hard to be stylish and this is clearly a case where less would have been a lot more. Just take a look at many of the transformation scenes and you'll see that the camera is constantly twirling and spinning around and it really does look as if the scenes were being filmed during an earthquake. I'm guessing this was done to try and build up some tension but it never works. We also get other scenes where the camera quickly zooms in and then we're treated to some fast-cut editing, which just makes the entire film look even cheaper than it is. The screenplay doesn't do enough with the current settings and just wait to you see what happens once Jekyll is captured and put on trial. Scott isn't bad but he's not good either. He certainly gives a decent performance and especially when you consider what type of film this is but I had a real problem with both the Hyde and Jekyll characters as he really didn't bring much out of either. Skerritt doesn't get to do too much but it's always nice seeing him. I did enjoy Bridges performance but one only wishes it had been in a better movie. There are so many versions of this story out there that if you're new to them then it's a no-brainer that you should skip this one. If you're like me and enjoy tracking down as many versions as you can then you might want to give this a rental but don't have your expectations too high.

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.