It's the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, told from a different perspective. In this case, the story unfolds through the eyes of Jekyll's maid - Mary Reilly. Mary is fond of Jekyll - and Jekyll returns the feelings - and gradually as they spend more time together Mary begins to become aware that something strange is happening - especially after Jekyll informs the staff that his new assistant - Mr. Edward Hyde - would be coming to stay with them.I found this a strange movie in a lot of ways. I was completely unconvinced of the need for the familiar story to be told through someone else's eyes. I'm just not sure what that added to the story. The basics we already know. We're told a lot about Mary's background - she was abused (physically, and it seems sexually) by her father in her childhood - and something in her relationship with her father mirrors the whole Jekyll/Hyde narrative - but I'm not sure why I really would care. I mean, if you're going to watch any take on the Jekyll & Hyde story, don't you want it to be about Jekyll & Hyde?The stars in this were Julia Roberts and John Malkovich. I'm not a big fan of either of them. In this, I'd say that neither were really bad; neither were particularly strong. A sort of Gothic horror role is different from anything I've ever seen Roberts in. Much has been made of her attempt at an Irish accent. Those criticisms didn't really strike home with me. Malkovich, I thought, was pretty low key in both roles. Much has also been made about the fact that Jekyll and Hyde looked so similar that people should have realized right away that they were the same person. Well - yes and no. In an interesting twist, Hyde was clean-shaven and Jekyll wasn't - the reverse of what you might expect in a good/evil contrast. But because of that, it's believable to me that even if you realize there's a resemblance, it might be difficult to realize that they were the same person. I was all right with that. The atmosphere in this was decent enough. There was a sense of the griminess of Victorian London that came through, and while this wasn't at all frightening, it did have a relatively sustained "creepiness" factor to it.Overall, though, I thought this was rather slow-moving. There's not really much excitement in it; it's quite un-frightening for a horror movie. I'd recommend sticking with a more traditional adaptation of the story. (4/10)

Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is the lowly chambermaid in the home of Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich). She is one of several servants and he is alone. He is experimenting in his lab and claims to have made a breakthrough to Mary. He announces a new visitor Edward Hyde is coming. He develops a closer relationship with Mary over the objections of the butler Mr. Poole. She reveals her abused past. He sends her to deliver a letter in secret to whorehouse madam Mrs. Farraday (Glenn Close) who agrees to rent a room to Mr. Hyde.It's all gray, dull, and flat. There is no tension and no thrills. There is definitely no mystery as the story unfolds inevitably. This is very boring. This has an old fashion Gothic horror style. The movie keeps going and going with the same flat unrelenting tone. Roberts is doing a lot of deer-in-the-headlights acting which only adds to the dull, flat feel.

recreation of Victorian atmosphere. version of old story. inspired cast. ivory skin of central character. and John Malkovich. a film like a visit in museum. each piece on perfect place, each step as key for a treasure. strange flavor, cold touch. and air of love story. maybe, it is not convincing. but it is beautiful. and delicate like a silk butterfly. it is not very realistic but charm of each performance is necessary brick for a not really bad building. it is a kind of travel and fascination of viewer is secret satisfaction to know the truth at beginning. sure, Julia Roberts is not extraordinary but her work is correct. and this fact is important. like sign of a meeting between two fascinating actors.

OK, so this film was trashed by the critics... and I would bet a fortune that the average MTV generation movie-goer will practically fall asleep watching it - but I posit that their trouble with this film says more about them than it does about Frear's Gothic tale.There are weaknesses - above all the fact that everyone else (including Julia Roberts ) has an accent but Malkovitch refuses to even attempt one. What's an American accent doing in the middle of all this? Malkovitch also seems to be channeling his own performance in Frear's masterpiece, Dangerous Liaisons - but if you haven't seen that film you should love what he does in this one.But other than that, I found the slow pace to be totally gripping... The entire story is told from the viewpoint of Mary Reilly, and I have never seen Julia Roberts do a better job than here. She is wonderfully effective... it is worth watching this film only for her performance. But it is also worth watching because of the attention to period detail. You really get a feeling of what it must have been like to live in the 19th century. The manners, the utensils, the class differences...the psycho-sexual straight-jacket.I will not give any details about the film - I'll let those who watch it discover it for themselves. But I would like to say one thing about the pace. This is not an action film, it is not even a horror film in the traditional sense. It is mainly a story of discovery - dealing with the slow realization of hidden desires and uncontrolled motivations; as such it should not - nay, could not be done at a quicker pace. It's really too bad that fewer and fewer people today seem to be capable of watching something that is subtle and slow. The loss is theirs.