Connect with us

Reviews

[REVIEW:] ‘Doctor Jekyll’ Harkens Back to Hammer’s Roots

Published

on

Few things are designed to set my heart aflutter quite like the words “HAMMER PRESENTS” emblazoned in large Gothic letters as red as the old “Kensington Gore” over the opening sequence of a Robert Louis Stevenson adaptation. Indeed, I am the person that Doctor Jekyll — the latest of Hammer Films’ post-2008 attempts to resurrect and reinvent itself — was theoretically made for: a Brit convulsed with nostalgia for the Hammer of yore, yet hungry for horror that reflects the modern world I inhabit. So I’ll attempt to say this as objectively as possible: I liked Doctor Jekyll rather a lot while still finding it muddled and underwhelming.

Doctor Jekyll is a New Interpretation of a Classic Tale

Directed by Joe Stephenson, Doctor Jekyll stars Scott Chambers (Malevolent) as Rob, a young man with a checkered past desperate to get back on his feet so he can see his baby daughter. His job search leads him to the isolated mansion of Dr. Nina Jekyll (Hannibal’s Eddie Izzard), a former giant in the pharmaceutical world who was forced out of the spotlight following a scandal. Nina needs a caretaker, and ignoring the protestations of her glowering estate manager (the superb Lindsay Duncan), she offers Rob the gig.

Of course, this is a Jekyll and Hyde story so there’s more to Nina than first meets the eye. Rob soon realizes that his boss’s mood — entire personality, perhaps — can turn on a dime; the bored recluse at breakfast who yearns for a bowl of “crunchy, nutty” Crunchy Nut Cornflakes becomes curt and eye-rollingly dismissive at lunch, before visiting Rob in his room at night with the demeanor of a kindly confidante.

We all know we’ll be seeing Nina’s alter ego, Rachel Hyde, before the end credits roll. But Doctor Jekyll seems uncertain about why exactly that is.

A Jekyll and Hyde story with an identity crisis

As Rob, Chambers brings an affable, awkward charm to Doctor Jekyll. But this is Izzard’s film through and through, and she plays her dual role with relish. The austere, dignified Jekyll is a world away from Izzard’s dancing, prancing, cackling vision of Hyde, a performance as mad as it is mesmerizing, yet always tightly controlled.

Advertisement

Casting a powerhouse trans performer like Izzard in the role inevitably raised the question of whether Doctor Jekyll would tap into the trans possibilities of the source material. This wouldn’t be the first time that Hammer has taken this route, intentionally or otherwise: 1971’s Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde saw Ralph Bates’ Henry Jekyll transforming into the gorgeous Sister Hyde (Martine Beswick) while trying to create an elixir of life. That film was almost progressive in its portrayal of gender identity, with Sister Hyde asserting herself as the true identity and coming through no matter how hard Jekyll tried to suppress her, but stumbled into troubling territory as Jekyll ransacked women’s corpses for parts and lulled victims into a false sense of security by deliberately approaching them as Hyde.

Exploring Gender, Identity, and Legacy in Hammer’s Fourth Adaptation

Doctor Jekyll doesn’t take the obvious route, which is a good thing in many ways. This is Hammer’s fourth go-round with Stevenson’s story, the previous adaptations being 1959’s comedically slanted The Ugly Duckling, 1960’s The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll, which presents Hyde as the charming face of evil, and the aforementioned gender-swapping Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde, so it’s only natural for the company to want to do something new. Frankly, it’s also refreshing to see Izzard play two self-assured women for the price of one.

The problem is that Doctor Jekyll doesn’t know what it wants to be. Viewers might assume that Nina’s backstory as a disgraced pharma magnate would reveal a clear cause for her affliction, but Dan Kelly-Mulhern’s script gets lost in a confusing attempt to tie her back to the original Henry Jekyll, while also suggesting some form of possession. There are some interesting ideas at play about the way money and power corrupt a person beyond recognition, but the muddiness of the transformation itself only serves to make this concept feel hollow.

It’s not Hammer time — but it could be

Doctor Jekyll isn’t quite the return to form that Hammer fans may crave, but it is potentially a promising sign of things to come. Between the striking styling of Jekyll/Hyde, the delightfully playful and baroque score by Blair Mowat, and the bold but compelling choice to shoot Jekyll’s isolated manor primarily in bright sunlight, Doctor Jekyll has one foot firmly planted in Hammer’s Gothic past while another creeps into curious new territory. That’s not a bad position for a storied horror house to straddle.

As for this first attempt under new owner John Gore, Doctor Jekyll is not unlike the bowl of sugary cereal that Nina pines for at breakfast. It’s nutritionally lacking and won’t leave you fully satisfied, but that doesn’t mean you won’t enjoy consuming it.

Advertisement

Doctor Jekyll is available now on VOD platforms.

Samantha McLaren is a queer Scottish writer, artist, and horror fanatic living in NYC. Her writing has appeared in publications like Fangoria, Scream the Horror Magazine, and Bloody Disgusting, as well as on her own blog, Terror in Tartan. If she's not talking about Bryan Fuller's Hannibal or Peter Cushing, she's probably asleep.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Frankenstein’ Review: Guillermo Del Toro Is Off to the Races

Published

on

Those expecting Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein to be similar to the book, or to any other adaptation, are in for something else. A longtime enjoyer of the creature’s story, Del Toro instead draws from many places: the novel, James Whale’s culturally defining 1931 film, the Kenneth Branagh version, there are even hints from Terence Fisher’s Curse of Frankenstein, and if the set design and costuming are to be believed, there are trace elements of the National Theatre production too.

The formulation to breathe life into this amalgam is a sort of storm cloud of cultural memory and personal desire for Del Toro. This is about crafting his Frankenstein: the one he wanted to see since he was young, the vision he wanted to stitch together. What results is an experience that is more colorful and kinetic and well-loved by its creator than any Frankenstein we’ve had yet, but what it leaves behind is much of its gothic heart. Quiet darkness, looming dread, poetry, and romance are set aside as what has been sold as “the definitive retelling” goes off to the races. It’s a fast-paced ride through a world of mad science, and you’re on it.

Victor Frankenstein’s Ambition and Tragedy

A tale as old as time, with some changes: the morbid talents and untamed hubris of Victor Frankenstein (Oscar Isaac) guide him to challenge death itself. Spurred by a wealthy investor named Henrich Harlander, and a desire for Harlander’s niece Elizabeth (Mia Goth), Victor uses dead flesh and voltaic vigor to bring a creature to life. His attempts to rear it, however, go horribly wrong, setting the two on a bloody collision course as the definitions of man and monster become blurred.

Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein is more Hellboy in its presentation than it is Crimson Peak; it’s honestly more similar to Coppola’s Dracula than either of them. The film is barely done with its opening when it starts with a loud sequence of the monster attacking Walton’s ship on the ice. Flinging crew members about and walking against volleys of gunfire, he is a monstrosity by no other name. The Creature (Jacob Elordi) cries out in guttural screams, part animal and part man, as it calls for its creator to be returned to him. While visually impressive (and it remains visually impressive throughout, believe me), this appropriately bombastic hook foreshadows a problem with tone and tempo.

A Monster That Moves Too Fast

The pace overall is far too fast for its first half, even with its heavy two-and-a-half-hour runtime. It’s also a far cry from the brooding nature the story usually takes. A scene where Victor demonstrates rudimentary reanimation to his peers and a council of judges is rapid, where it should be agonizingly slow. There’s horror and an instability in Victor to be emphasized in that moment, but the grotesque sight is an oddly triumphant one instead. Most do not revile his experiments; in fact he’s taken quite seriously.

Advertisement

Many scenes like this create a tonal problem that makes Victor’s tale lean more toward melodrama than toward philosophical or emotional aspects; he is blatantly wild and free, in a way that is respected rather than pitied. There are opportunities to stop, breathe in the Victorian roses and the smell of death, to get really dour, but it’s neglected until the film’s second half.

Isaac’s and Goth’s performances are overwrought at points, feeling more like pantomimes of Byronic characters. I’m not entirely convinced it has more to do with them than with the script they’re given. Like Victor working with the parts of inmates and dead soldiers, even the best of actors with the best of on-screen chemistry are forced to make do. The dialogue has incredibly high highs (especially in its final moments), but when it has lows, how low they are; a character outright stating that “Victor is the real monster” adage to his face was an ocean floor piece of writing if there ever was one.

Isaac, Goth, and Elordi Bring Life to the Dead

Jacob Elordi’s work here, however, is blameless. Though Elordi’s physical performance as the creature will surely win praise, his time speaking is the true highlight. It’s almost certainly a definitive portrayal of the character; his voice for Victor’s creation is haunted with scorn and solitude, the same way his flesh is haunted by the marks of his creator’s handiwork. It agonizes me to see so little of the books’ most iconic lines used wholesale here, because they would be absolutely perfect coming from Elordi. Still, he has incredible chemistry with both Isaac and Goth, and for as brief as their time together is, he radiates pure force.

Frankenstein Is a Masterclass in Mise-En-Scène

Despite its pacing and tone issues, one can’t help but appreciate the truly masterful craftsmanship Del Toro has managed to pack into the screen. Every millimeter of the sets is carved to specification, filled with personality through to the shadows. Every piece of brick, hint of frost, stain of blood, and curve of the vine is painstakingly and surgically placed to create one of the most wonderful and spellbinding sets you’ve seen—and then it keeps presenting you with new environments like that, over, and over.

At the very least, Del Toro’s Frankenstein is a masterpiece of mise-en-scène down to the minutest of details, and that makes it endlessly rewatchable for aesthetic purposes. This isn’t even getting into the effervescent lighting, or how returning collaborator Kate Hawley has outdone herself again with the costuming. Guillermo Del Toro tackling the king of gothic horror stories, a story written by the mother of all science fiction, inevitably set a high bar for him to clear. And while it’s not a pitch perfect rendering of Mary Shelley’s slow moving and Shakespearean epistolary, it is still one of the best-looking movies you will see all year.

Advertisement

Perhaps for us, it’s at the cost of adapting the straightforward, dark story we know into something more operatic. It sings the tale like a soprano rather than reciting it like humble prose, and it doesn’t always sing well. But for Del Toro, the epic scale and voice of this adaptation is the wage expected for making the movie he’s always dreamed of. Even with its problems, it’s well worth it to see a visionary director at work on a story they love.

Continue Reading

Reviews

‘The Siege of Ape Canyon’ Review: Bigfoot Comes Home

Published

on

In my home, films like Night of the Demon and Abominable are played on repeat; Stan Gordon is king. One of my favorite stories surrounding Bigfoot and Ufology is the Bigfoot/UFO double flap of 1973, which Stan Gordon has an incredible in-depth book on. The Patterson–Gimlin film couldn’t hold a flame to Stan Gordon’s dive into one of my home state’s most chronicled supernatural time periods. But as much as I love the Bigfoot topic, I’m not ashamed to say I don’t know half of the stories surrounding that big hairy beast. And one topic that I’m not ashamed to say I haven’t heard of is The Siege of Ape Canyon.

The Harrowing Events of Ape Canyon

Washington State, 1924. A group of miners (originally consisting of Marion Smith, Leroy P. Smith, Fred Beck, John Peterson, August Johannson, and Mac Rhodes) was on a quest to claim a potential gold mine. Literally. The miners would eventually set up camp on the east slope of Mount Saint Helens. Little did they know their temporary shelter would be the start of a multi-day barrage of attacks from what they and researchers believed to be Bigfoot. What transpired in those days would turn out to be one of the most highly criticized pieces of American lore, nearly lost to time and history…nearly.

I need to set the record straight on a few things before we get started. One, I don’t typically like watching documentaries. Two, I believe in Bigfoot. Three, this documentary made me cry.

Image courtesy of Justin Cook Public Relations.

Reviving a Forgotten Bigfoot Legend in The Siege of Ape Canyon

Documentarian Eli Watson sets out to tell one of the most prolific Bigfoot stories of all time (for those who are deep in Bigfoot mythology). It’s noted fairly early in the film that this story is told often and is well known in the Washington area. So then, how do people outside of the incident location know so little about it? I’ve read at least 15 books on and about Bigfoot, and I’ve never once heard this story. This isn’t a Stan-Gordon-reported story about someone sitting on the john and seeing a pair of red eyes outside of their bathroom window. The story around Ape Canyon has a deeper spiritual meaning that goes beyond a few sightings here and there.

Watson’s documentary, though, isn’t just about Bigfoot or unearthing the story of Ape Canyon. Ape Canyon nearly became nothing more than a tall tale that elders would share around a campfire to keep the younglings out of the woods at 2 AM. If it weren’t for Mark Myrsell, that’s exactly what would have happened. The Siege of Ape Canyon spends half its time unpacking the story of Fred Beck and his prospecting crew, and the other half tells a truly inspiring tale of unbridled passion, friendship, and love.

Mark Myrsell’s Relentless Pursuit: Friendship, Truth, and Tears

Mark Myrsell’s undying passion for everything outdoors inevitably led to bringing one of Bigfoot’s craziest stories to light. His devotion to the truth vindicated many people who were (probably) labeled kooks and crazies. Throughout Myrsell’s endless search for the truth, he made lifelong friends along the way. What brought me to tears throughout The Siege of Ape Canyon is Watson’s insistence on showing the human side of Myrsell and his friends. They’re not in this to make millions or bag a Bigfoot corpse; they just want to know the truth. And that’s what they find.

Advertisement

The Siege of Ape Canyon is a documentary that will open your eyes to a wildly mystical story you may not have heard of. And it does it pretty damn well. Whereas many documentaries feel the need to talk down to the viewer just to educate them, Watson’s documentary takes you along for the ride. It doesn’t ask you to believe or not believe in Bigfoot. It allows you to make your own decisions and provides the evidence it needs to. If you’ve ever had a passing interest in the topic of Bigfoot, or if you think you’re the next Stan Gordon, I highly recommend watching The Siege of Ape Canyon.

The Siege of Ape Canyon stomps its way onto digital platforms on November 11. Give yourself a little post-Halloween treat and check it out!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement