It's a well-known story, the kind that made most sense during England's Victorian period. An innocent and respectable man somehow lets his savage unconscious loose and pays for it in the end. Dorian Gray served the same purpose for Oscar Wilde in "The Portrait of Dorian Gray." It took Freud to explain it to the public.This version of Jeykll and Hyde departs considerably from the novella as I remember it from years ago. All of the filmed versions do to some extent but this one is at the farthest remove.As Jeykll/Hyde, John Hannah gives it everything he's got but is somewhat undone by a confusing script that wanders around and covers not just gauche behavior -- stomping little girls on the street and erratic almost to the point of being presidential -- but several murders, purposeful in that Jeykll or Hyde is intentionally committing them, not just in a fit of pique, but to preserve the secrecy surrounding his, er, peculiar problem.There's no make up involved in the transition from one persona to another. Sometimes, as when angrily confronting the politically ambitious Sir Danvers Carew, one is reminded of the anecdote about the snooty critic taken to see one of the early films of the story and being told that the actor was playing the principal part. "I see. Which one is he now?" Then again, there are times when Hyde actually appears on screen opposite Jeykll and the two argue, with Hannah's Hyde sneering and ranting while Hannah's Jeykll cowers in the corner.If you can forget about the stark original and bull your way through the obfuscating obstacles, it's still a pretty good story. At least there are whores involved instead of Spencer Tray's show girls.

The acting is superb, the story-line flawless, the filming beautiful and creepy. This is a 'sleeper,' and, sad to say, one which was made for television and not wide release. But any die-hard fan of Horror or Mystery can't afford to let this one go by the wayside.Think you know already the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde? I thought I did as well, and went into the film with an incredulous, nothing-else-to-watch attitude. But, as happens on occasion, my bad attitude was rewarded with surprise after surprise, and with an ending to this masterpiece that was/is deeply consoling and faith-building (to say the least).Plenty of bloodshed, classic British 'Dickensian' actors, prostitution, mob violence, brooding introspection, blackmail, self-licking lollipops, and the love of a wonderful Christian girl who should be, because of her circumstances, a hardened, angry person incapable of any feeling whatever.Don't miss this one!

I checked out this version of J&H on TV mainly because I'm a fan of John Hannah, but he was very disappointing in this role. It was his affability that made him a treat to watch in films such as 'Sliding Doors' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral', and it is that very trait that undermines his portrayal of Mr Hyde. He is completely unconvincing as a menacing, dangerous figure, and the decision not to present Mr Hyde as physically different from Dr Jekyll exacerbates this problem, although it is an interesting choice artistically and could have paid rich dividends in the hands of an actor capable of projecting a truly intimidating presence. Also, his acts of barbarity, which are obviously meant to be shocking, don't have the desired effect; this is partly because of our familiarity with the story, but more so because of the lack of any real tension or suspense of any kind. Not only does Mr Hyde not seem as menacing as he is meant to be, but Dr Jekyll never convinces us that he was a paragon of virtue in the first place, due to inadequate exposure in the screenplay as well as the underwhelming acting and direction. The performances from the supporting actors likewise feel rather wet and unconvincing.It seems to me that the theme of this film was that there truly was no difference between Jekyll and Hyde, and that it was Dr Jekyll who deliberately chose evil. This point is made repeatedly in several repetitive scenes where Dr Jekyll keeps talking about "removing impurities" and that in the end he will "contain evil", and the servant Mabel time and again discusses the fact that we are able to choose between good and evil. This might have been an interesting subject had is been dealt with more subtly. The battle between the good and evil sides of a person also became more ridiculous as it became more explicit, and the resolution seemed to be designed more for its non-existent shock value than for any faithfulness to either the tale as it was originally told or to the tale as it had been told thus far in this film.Even if, or maybe especially if you are a fan of John Hannah, stay clear of this film if you want to avoid being disappointed on all levels.

The story if 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' by Robert Louis Stevenson is already a good, solid one, with powerful and relevant themes in it, on its own. Yet this TV movie chooses to alter the story with as the end result, a movie with a story that lacks a real point or a good main plot line.The movie mixes several elements from other previous Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde movies (even from "Mary Reilly") but yet it fails to use the most interesting and intriguing elements. The story isn't always interesting enough to follow because of this but in this case that's not just only the scripts fault.Also of course a big problem of the movie is that it has a typical made-for-TV look, which is never a really positive thing. The costumes and sets are cheap looking and far from impressive. I also really didn't liked the movie its visual style. Judging by this movie I have the feeling that the cinematographer thinks of himself that he is brilliant. He uses artistic positions and lighting with as a result that every sequences feels fabricated and planned out. It makes the movie, story and its characters feel very distant because of this. Also the directing isn't top-class. The movie is filled with a couple of overdone sequences, which mainly feature some slow-motion effects to make the movie feel extra artistic. The end result is the opposite of what the movie makers tried to achieve. Also the musical score is typical simple made-for-TV stuff, which means that's its more distracting and irritating, than that it adds to the atmosphere of the movie.I at first had trouble seeing John Hannah in the main part as Jekyll/Hyde. I don't know, after his role in the two Mummy movies I have difficulties taking him serious in serious roles, especially when he plays the main character. But once I got accustomed to seeing him playing the Jekyll/Hyde character he was alright. It's too bad that the material and crew he had to work with wasn't the best. Most of the other characters feel like they were just thrown into the story to fill it up. None of them serves a significant enough purpose in the story. Also the actors that portray them aren't the most charismatic or talented persons around, which also certainly obviously doesn't help the movie and story.The movie tries to be different in its style but especially its story. This movie basically is a free interpretation of the classic 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' that abandons lots of themes and elements from the novel. The struggle between the good and evil side of a person is brought well and effective to the screen but its too bad that the rest of the story and its alterations work out far from well. The movie lacks a good main plot and purpose. It makes this version of the Jekyll and Hyde story a bit or a redundant one that adds far too little interesting to the classic story.An original but not interesting enough made-for-TV interpretation of the famous story.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/