Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Michael_Elliott Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (2002) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Mark Redfield produced, wrote, directed and stars in this latest updating of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story. In case you've never heard of it, the respectable Henry Jekyll (Redfield) begins to experiment with a potion, which eventually turns him into the murderous Edward Hyde who then sets his violent ways on a prostitute (Elena Torrez). If you're sitting out there wondering why in the world we need yet another adaptation of this often-filmed story then rest assured that we really don't. If you've seen as many versions of this tale as I have you're probably wondering if this one is worth bothering with and I'd give it a pretty big recommendation because you can't help but admire what Redfield was able to do with such a small budget and apparently some production problems when the original backer bowed out of the project. On the whole this is a handsomely produced version as it's obvious there's a lot of care going on in the film. The screenplay does a good job at trying to show us new things that were left out of previous versions and I admire that they tried to tell the story through the view point of the lawyer Utterson. I'd be lying if I said the filmmakers stuck to this 100% of the time but it at least gives us a somewhat different view of the events. The direction by Redfield is another thumbs up because he has no problems telling the story and it's certainly well crafted and paced. Redfield, once again, does a very good job in the lead role and I really loved how differently he played the two men. I really enjoyed how laid back he made the Jekyll character without making him boring or too much of a good guy. On the other hand he also does a very good job with Hyde making him an evil character but slowly building up that evilness. Another major plus that the film has going for it is the performance by Torrez who is simply divine in the role. There's no question that she's easy on the eyes but unlike so many low-budget movies she also has an acting ability. I thought she was very believable in the part and I really enjoyed the sexuality that she brought to the role without over doing it as well as being so vulnerable. The rest of the supporting players are all very good in their parts, which certainly isn't the norm for this type of film. I do think the film's biggest flaw is that it runs ten-minutes short of two hours, which is just way too long simply because we've seen this story so many times that the viewer is going to know all the twists and turns that are going on.

palantir123 I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.

moviemanic07 The good Dr. Jekyll discovers a potion that allows him to take a walk on the wild side as the evil Mr. Hyde in this retelling of the classic Robert Lewis Stevenson story. I find it unlikely that any filmmaker will surpass the masterful 1931 version of the story starring Frederic Marsh, but this low-budget version is really quite compelling and effective. I actually prefer it to the dull 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy. Writer/director Mark Redfield, who also gives a lively performance in the showy, dual lead roles, thankfully puts the emphasis on drama and theme rather than gore, and his cast delivers. This film, which seems to be influenced by the Hammer Horror than 'Halloween,' is a very welcome relief from the trashy, unimaginative slasher films that low-budget filmmakers continually try to pawn off on us fans of the genre. I wish more filmmakers currently working in the horror genre would attempt moody period pieces. If we're lucky, perhaps Redfield and company will tackle more of horror's great novels. Frankenstein, anyone? How about Dracula? (Anything to get the taste of 'Van Helsing' out of my mouth.)

cinematicheroes Whatever happened to the classics? That's what I always hear from true movie connoisseurs. Well with the DVD release of Mark Redfield's version of DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE (Alpha Video), we have a new-age classic ... a throwback if you will. I myself, had the good fortune to see a screening of it in Baltimore over a year ago, and I left the theater feeling invigorated.Redfield and fellow producer/writer Stuart Voytilla tell this tale, quite frankly, the way that Robert Louis Stevenson, would have told it, through the medium of film. Shot in classic locations, with an extremely high production value for the budget it was shot on, the film is technically superior.And Redfield shows a real screen presence in the dual title roles, not to mention that his direction adds a little something to it. He also throws in a little FRANKENSTEIN-type undertones about man-playing-God and it really works in the picture. I don't want to give anything away, so I would leave the onus on classic film fans and fans of the horror genre alike to check this movie out.While it may not pack the 'typical' Hollywood cast - which is about the only bad thing I can say about it - it does not disappoint in the delivery. But, hey, don't take my word for it. If you're a movie connoisseur, see it for yourself.And hopefully, it can provide an answer to your long-standing question: 'whatever happened to the classics?' That's because it's a new-age classic, a throwback if you will ... one worthy of investing the small fee to buy it or rent it.