Connect with us

Reviews

[REVIEW:] ‘Doctor Jekyll’ Harkens Back to Hammer’s Roots but Can’t Quite Recapture the Magic

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.

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.

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

[REVIEW] The People Vs. ‘The Exorcism of Emily Rose’

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a unique take on exorcism films. The film follows Erin Brunner (Laura Linney), a high-profile defense lawyer. Brunner is fresh off a murder case where her client was cleared of all charges–only for that client to turn around and commit another set of murders. In the hopes of becoming a partner at her law firm, Brunner is talked into taking the defense for Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Father Moore finds himself in the hot seat after a series of exorcisms resulted in the death of Emma Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). The twist? Erin Brunner is agnostic! OooOOoooOh.

Published

on

The second film I wanted to cover, that’s “based on a true story”, is one that utterly fascinates me…and not for the right reasons. After Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, I felt let down. I am by no means a Henry Lee Lucas expert, but even with someone having the bare knowledge of the case, I couldn’t believe they dared to refer to it as having anything to do with the Confession Killer. Could The Exorcism of Emily Rose pull me out of this pit of despair? Can it get some basic information right? Ugh.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a unique take on exorcism films. The film follows Erin Brunner (Laura Linney), a high-profile defense lawyer. Brunner is fresh off a murder case where her client was cleared of all charges–only for that client to turn around and commit another set of murders. In the hopes of becoming a partner at her law firm, Brunner is talked into taking the defense for Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson). Father Moore finds himself in the hot seat after a series of exorcisms resulted in the death of Emma Rose (Jennifer Carpenter). The twist? Erin Brunner is agnostic! OooOOoooOh.

This film brings us the dramatized events of Emily’s tragic final days through the setting of a courtroom drama. There’s something fun about this idea. It’s surprising this idea hasn’t been reused. Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson are an excellent duo, they play off each other very well. If only the real-life lawyers were as likable as Erin Brunner (we’ll get there later). The real star of the show is Jennifer Carpenter. Tasked with doing justice to the real Emily Rose (Anneliese Michel), Carpenter handles her performance with class.

The story jumps back and forth between the courtroom and Emily’s experiences. There is great information for the film to base its script on, and it doesn’t do it interestingly. One of the most notorious pieces of evidence in this case is the leaked audio of the 67 exorcisms performed on Michel. The Catholic church did not release this audio until around 2011, but Carpenter does a great job of channeling the pain you can hear in the audio.

An interesting angle of the real Anneliese Michel story is how the lawyers were really trying to put the devil on trial. Unlike the film, Michel’s parents were also put on trial, as well as the two priests who initiated the exorcisms. Rather than the film’s dramatic guilty plea with time served as a sentence, the German justice department thought the parents had suffered enough and that the priests should just get fined. In reality, both the parents and the priests deserved to go to jail. The complete neglect of Anneliese’s ailments was thought nothing more than the dirty hands of the devil. Anneliese’s parents and the priests were the cause of her death. Their extreme beliefs in a bearded man in the sky trumped the reality of what was actually happening with their extremely sick daughter.

Advertisement

The film plays off Brunner as someone who needs to see the light. Brunner is put on this case to help rectify her previous case (the one where she got the murderer off without charges). God put her in Father Moore’s hands. So, by this logic, co-writer/director Scott Derrickson thinks that for one person to receive redemption, another must die. The Exorcism of Emily Rose is nothing more than religious propaganda. “What if god is real,” Erin Brunner asks the jury. Even if god is real, a young woman is dead! God isn’t on the chopping block, Father Moore is. This latter half of this film plays strictly to the Bible Belt.

Also, Erin Brunner is written as someone who can be redeemed and will be redeemed, a tragic character who has accepted greed over truth. Do you want to know who defended the Michels in real life? Lawyers who defended Nazis in the Nurenberg trials. Scott Derrickson can fuck right off.

Everything about this film feels like nothing more than Catholic-funded propaganda. Rather than owning up to their mistakes and accepting the punishment they deserved, the Michels and priests never had to answer for their true crimes. They left a young woman to die a truly horrible death and all got off with a slap on the wrist.

All of this went down around the same time as Vatican 2. The Catholics who were against Vatican 2 were hoping that they could find a way to prove that Anneliese was possessed because god wasn’t happy with the Vatican II overhaul. If they could prove god’s anger, they could use that as fuel to ensure Vatican II didn’t happen. Anneliese’s mother gaslit her into refusing the idea that her neurological issues could be the cause of all this. See, Anneliese wanted to be a teacher, but her mother forced her to believe that no one would hire her as a teacher if she had all of these issues. People won’t hire a crazy teacher.

Failed by those around her, Anneliese was posthumously deprived of any justice. If there is a god, I can only hope the Michels and the two priests do not meet him. Instead of breaking down all of these fascinating aspects of the case of Anneliese Michel, Scott Derrickson crafted a shell of a film. His lack of care for the source material is beyond disrespectful to Anneliese’s pain in her short time on earth. Scott Derrickson’s classless and [seemingly] Catholic-funded sophomore feature film is nothing more than a film that has a few solid scares that rely on you taking him at his word. For a film that starts with the title card “based on a true story,” there is not a lick of truth in this nearly two-hour film.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Reviews

[REVIEW] ‘Dreadstone: The Beginning’ Is a Gold Rush of Terror

Published

on

We continue to start our year by looking at short films that either ran their festival circuit in 2024 or will soon be running the festival circuit. Western horror is a subgenre that’s often overlooked, usually because it offensively centers around Native Americans attacking groups of white people who have taken over their land. Bone Tomahawk and The Burrowers are unfortunate examples of painting Natives in a negative light for the plight of the whites. Who knew all it would take for a well-done Western horror is an Italian director at the helm?

Dreadstone: The Beginning follows Jeb (Grid Margraf), a tired and weathered man who is left in charge of his non-verbal autistic daughter Adeline (Alexandra Boulas). Jeb finds himself in possession of a purple-glowing gem that may be more nefarious than meets the eye. The two traverse across harsh lands in search of the source of the gem. But things turn south when they find out what they were looking for may have answers to questions they never intended on asking.

Written by Avery Peck and Riccardo Suriano, and directed by Riccardo Suriano, Dreadstone: The Beginning is a fascinating start to a tale as old as time. Peck’s cinematography beautifully brings their words to life and effortlessly blends cosmic horror with the overwhelming fruitless nature of greed and the human condition. Cosmic and Western horror aren’t typically put together, but they work incredibly well with the ideas behind Dreadstone and its themes. Jeb’s gem is a practical MacGuffin and is a great stand-in for the concept of greed; this opulent-looking rock in a no-tech world. It’s a simple object that’s incredibly effective.

The frontier setting of Dreadstone works to create an isolating setting. This large setting singularly frames these two characters and makes them feel like the only people in the world. It isn’t until the film’s final shot that we realize they are definitely not the only people around. Dreadstone: The Beginning is a drastic change from Suriano’s previous film, Along Came Ruby. Besides the obvious time difference between these two films, Ruby sets itself as a Last of Us-like post-apocalyptic film, whereas Dreadstone: The Beginning sets itself to possibly be a pre-apocalyptic film. These two films also differ in tone, but both films prove that Suriano is confident with his overall voice and vision.

Alexandra Boulas stars in both Along Came Ruby and Dreadstone: The Beginning. Boulas excels in both films but gives a more reserved and confident performance in Dreadstone. With the exception of a few moments, Boulas’ performance is silent…but commanding. Watching Ruby shows that Boulas can easily deliver lines, while Dreadstone proves there’s more to her acting than line delivery. Fingers crossed we see her in more films in the near future, I think she has a promising career ahead of her.

Advertisement

Dreadstone: The Beginning is a unique take on Western horror that forgoes the [racist] Native Americans against white people trope that the subgenre is fraught with. A touch of cosmic horror, a hint of coming-of-age, and a heaping spoonful of good ole greed make Dreadstone: The Beginning a short film that will stick with you long after the credits roll. I’ll tell you what…this made me look forward to Dreadstone: The Aftermath!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement