Jekyll + Hyde (2006)

Director:

Nick Stillwell

Writers:

David T. Reilly (writer)
Robert Louis Stevenson (novel)

Genre:

Horror | Thriller

Tagline:

Everyone has a monster within.

Plot Keywords:

Sex | Drug | Medical Student | Female Nudity | Jekyll And Hyde

Cast

  (Cast overview, first billed only)

Bryan Fisher	...	Henry 'J' Jekyll / Hyde
Bree Turner	...	Martha Utterson
Jeff Roop	...	Lanyon
Zachary Bennett	...	Dan
Maria del Mar	...	Professor Poole
Jamie Chirgwin	...	Jessie - Bathtub Victim
Katrina Matthews	...	Mary
Landy Cannon	...	Jack
Boyd Banks	...	Morgue Attendant
Amanda Row	...	Heather Poole
Laura DeCarteret	...	Pharmacist (as Laura de Carteret)
Erin Davis	...	Gun Victim (as Erin Nicole Davis)
Adam MacDonald	...	Josh Enfield
Robyn Palmer	...	Cindy
Ean Thorley	...	Beaten Victim

MPAA:

Rated R for strong disturbing violence, sexuality, nudity, drug content and language.

Runtime:

97 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Certification:

Australia:R | USA:R | Finland:K-15 | Argentina:16

Filming Locations:

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Company:

J&H Films

Movie Connections:

Spoofs The Deer Hunter (1978)

Not really horror, but not bad

First things first: this is not a modern retelling of the Stevenson story, no matter what the blurb on the case claims. It's a different story in the same line, with characters who happen to be named the same as Stevenson's. Also, it isn't truly a horror story, but a dramatized sermon disguised as such. I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was produced by a church. It contains no mention of God (except in vain) or of doctrine, but it's an elaborate illustration of a moral, which is actually stated aloud at the end: evil exists in all of us. The specific moral message delivered, if any, can only be: don't mess with drugs.

In spite of or because of this, it isn't a bad movie. The director (or someone covering for him) shows one overriding talent: an ability to hold the interest; and that, in spite of making just about every mistake in the book. Take the first scene, where a character discovers a dead body. Instead of our discovering it at the same time he does, we get a series of cutaways from different angles, none of them from anyone's point of view; these take us out of the scene entirely. In other scenes, at points where it would become necessary to build suspense, or to pay it off, the director seems to have no confidence of his being able to do that, so he just ends the scenes there. Throughout, he overlays a loud, rather arty musical score, which is appealing in its own right but usually incongruous with the dramatic action, and often drowns it out altogether.

The virtue of the director's that does the most to counterbalance faults like these is his skill in getting good performances out of actors. Apart from the movie's leading lady, a producer's-girlfriend type, the cast all come off well. The leading man is perhaps a little callow, but perhaps that was part of the point.

The one important skill the director apparently lacks is the ability to create a solid script, or the judgment to recognize one. This one has playable scenes, but doesn't move right. It jerks around in time, never makes its chronology clear, telegraphs the ending at the beginning, and constantly cuts away from scenes just as they become interesting. Moreover, it's sketchy about the characters' motivations--most notably, Hyde's--and the progressions of their relationships. It needed at least one more go-through.

But I expect that the director will soon move up to bigger productions, with tighter scripts, and once he has the legs to stand on, will show what he can really do.