Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2017) User Reviews

I don't get the hype

[blumdeluxe · 5/10 · 20 April 2017]

"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" seems to be one of the most celebrated Indie films of the last years, regarding its numerous awards and the high ranking it received from many users on this site. To be honest, I don't really get why. Not saying that the movie is a flop or anything, but it is actually one of the worse Indie films I've seen recently.

The use of filters mixed with mediocre acting made it quite hard for me to accept the historical background the story is supposed to represent. While the story of Jekyll and Hyde offers great potential of which some is sure used in this adaption, at many points the film is a bit confusing and less thrilling than it would have been possible through a little switch of perspectives and more focus on the investigation. I believe the idea was to focus more on the inner battle of Dr. Jekyll, which is by any means a valid thought, but then we need to get to know more about the person of Dr. Jekyll, what his own dark sides were and what kind of a man he is, despite a honorable doctor.

As it is, "Jekyll and Hyde" is mediocre, not more. You can honor the perspective it tries to take but you can't say it's a superb film.

Pretty good for a low budget adaptation

[PhilPacker · 9/10 · 19 April 2018]

Okay, first off, if I'm comparing this to a movie I'd see in theater's that cost 100 million dollars, then it's a 5 or 6, but I get that this is a low budget adaptation. I love the book and I like checking out movies with the Jekyll and Hyde influence. One of my favorite's is FIGHT CLUB. Is this FIGHT CLUB, no, of course not. But one of the things I like best about that movie is that they use two different actors to represent the split personality.

If you've ever actually read the the book Jekyll and Hyde, then you would understand that there is an actual physical transformation and Stevenson treats Jekyll and Hyde as two different characters. I like that this version took a chance and did something out of the norm and used two different actors.

It moves pretty slow, but the pacing is comfortable and compares to the book. It's a great adaptation, and a pretty good low budget movie.

I get the reviews that knock thsi for being too low budget and I get the reviews that praise it for being a good adaptation. It's probably somehwere in between. I liked it.

Shamefully bad

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 20 February 2018]

This is a shamefully bad indie adaptation of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel. I had to laugh at the comment about a teacher using this as an educational tool because it bears only scant similarity to the actual story. Most of it just features boring long-winded conversations between peripheral characters written by somebody with a tin ear for dialogue. Everything is of a poor standard, rendering this no better than one of those 'amateur dramatics' productions. Vernon Wells appears, alongside poor old Mickey Rooney, who isn't even dressed in period gear. Sad to say, this was his last film appearance before his death in 2014.

Follows the story and is a great education tool

[jnmoviefan · 10/10 · 27 April 2017]

First, let me just say I love this novella. I am a huge fan of movies and literature. In fact, I am a teacher and I have always been disappointed that I didn't have a watchable version of this movie that followed the story. They always make it into a monster movie or horror story and it's not either of those.

Without giving anything away, the entire book is basically in this movie. There are some extras but they make sense. There is nothing gratuitous in this movie that doesn't fit in context with the story.

Guillermo Del Toro may get around to adapting the musical but that isn't the story Stevenson wrote at all - this is. I bought the teacher's edition of this on Blu-Ray which had a study guide and screenplay with it.

I have shown this to my middle school students and they really enjoyed it after reading the novella.

Sure the movie is a little low-budget but it's ten times better than any of the educational movies I watched as a kid.

Good Version of the Story

[Michael_Elliott · 12 October 2017]

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2017)

*** (out of 4)

Low-budget but effective adaptation of the classic novel as Shaun Paul Piccinino playing Dr. Henry Jekyll, a great doctor who decides to try and experiment with what causes men to go mad. Before long he is transformed in Mr. Hyde (Gianni Capaldi).

This film has earned all sorts of great acclaim and I went into it with rather high expectations. I'm the type of fan that must see every new version of this story and it really doesn't matter how many of them I watch. I just find the story to be such a fascinating one that it works well watching various interpretations of it.

I'm certainly not going to call this one a masterpiece like some have but I will say that this was a rather impressive version, although I had one major issue with the film. The biggest problem for me was the fact that there were certain scenes that were shot so dark that you could hardly see what was going on. I understand trying to add atmosphere to a film but when it's this dark it was kind of pointless.

With that said, i did enjoy the performances and especially Piccinino as Jekyll. He was extremely good in the role and I thought he really brought it to life. Having another actor play Hyde was interesting but Capaldi was good as well. What makes this special is the fact that it turned out to be Mickey Rooney's final performance as he has a very brief role as a witness. Margaret O'Brien also appears in a quick scene. Getting to see these two legends was a major plus.

Solution to a Great Many Things

[nogodnomasters · 1/10 · 30 June 2017]

The production opens with the serum already discovered with Jekyll and Hyde doing their transformations. Most of the film seems to center on everyone else attempting to figure out what is going on. There is a presumption the audience is familiar with the base story. Jekyll and Hyde are played by two separate characters who often appear in the same scene as they converse. At times it appears the film is about a descent into madness while other times addiction terms are used such as "chasing the dragon." What you may notice right off is that the acting was sad. The camera frequently frames the back of a person's head as if there is someone blocking your view in a theater. Jed Rowen has a death bed scene that is comical in the "so bad it is good" area. Mickey Rooney has a brief appearance as Mr. Louis while Margaret O'Brien plays Miss Stevenson. Charlene Rooney, Mickey Rooney's daughter-in-law also has a role.

Several of the art house and indie fest awards were achievement awards for the actors and had nothing to do with the quality of the film. Indeed, I would say all the awards were from name recognition.

Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity.

One very scary movie.

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 10/10 · 2 September 2020]

This is one of the scariest movies ever made. It will scary you out of your mind. It is a very scary movie. It has great acting. It also has a great story line. It will scary you.