Movie Review

Hyde from 'Mary Reilly'

By Constantine Nasr
Staff Writer

One would imagine that after the current re-emergence of the classic tales of horror revised and updated by modern filmmakers like Francis Ford Coppola and pals, there may have been a break before remaking every idea in the book, from Godzilla to the Hunchback of Notre Dame. The most recent attempt at rehashing, or revamping, a classic tale of terror is "Mary Reilly," which may unfortunately close the book on this pattern of adaptations.
"Mary Reilly" is the new attempt to bring a real romance to the tale of Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Based on the novel by Valerie Martin, this film version was meant to satisfy the romantic flavor that appealed to fans of the rather similar take on Dracula three years ago. Unfortunately, this film is no more romantic than a handful of roses dead on arrival.
The film is the story of a young lady named Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts), who is a new servant in the service of the good Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich). Mary's good intentions and hard work soon find her in the doctor's favor and it is not long before they become more than master and servant. However, the doctor has been secretly performing those obsessive experiments in his laboratory that cause Mary and the rest of the servants to wonder.
Soon, a shadowy figure named Mr. Hyde appears. Introduced as the doctor's new assistant, Hyde is given full use of Jekyll's resources and respect among the servants. When Mary and Hyde meet, she realizes that something in him sparks her passion. In the course of events, she slowly comes to understand that the goodness of Jekyll and the evil of Hyde are not as clear-cut as they would seem.
There are so many flaws in this film that it is hard to decide what to say first.
The casting of Julia Roberts was probably the worst decision a filmmaker could make in his or her career, especially for a period piece like "Mary Reilly." Roberts, no matter how hard she may want to act, cannot pull off parts of this significance. She is more suited to doing her "Pretty Woman" thing or even guest spots on Friends; but to cast her in a role of this kind, in which she even attempts to pull off a Cockney accent, is exactly what happened when Keanu Reeves tried to pass off as Jonathan Harker in "Bram Stoker's Dracula." Though I hate to say such things even if they are true, Roberts' performance is the weakest link in the pattern of poor choices this film continuously makes.
Malkovich, in his first performance since the tedious adaptation of "Heart of Darkness," does what he can with the duality of Jekyll and Hyde. The truth is that he isn't given much to do--no one is. While he tries to play both characters in a rather ambiguous manner, the essence of the conflict is really lost. Though one would like to feel the pain of both characters, the emphasis on the extremities of good and evil are at odds with this performance, though not because of Malkovich. He treats the doctor with a fair hand, making him a sympathetic and tired older man; his Hyde, however, is a young and lustier, more attractive demon who seems to remind me more of a pimp than a killer.
Glenn Close, who has little to do with the film as a whole, is a complete waste in the three scenes she appears in as the lady of the whorehouse, Mrs. Farraday. Looking more or less in drag, or (as one friend told me) a close imitation of Cloris Leachman from "Young Frankenstein," Close was misused for an actress of her status. Her "Sunset Boulevard" persona must be wearing on her ability as an actress, because she hams up the screen with this performance. My guess is that she knew how ridiculous the whole thing was and just decided to have some fun with the less than gracious part.
The real villain of this story is the script itself. Screenwriter Christopher Hampton, fresh from his success story "Carrington," tried to deal a pretty deck of cards to both the good and evil characters, in an attempt to leave the viewer to wonder who the real hero is. Instead, we have a movie in which nothing happens, an hour and a half of complete boredom (Mary seems to bring Jekyll his breakfast for two-thirds of the movie). With no screen credit given to the genius of Stevenson himself, a real fan of the classic tale would call this a blessing rather than an ignorant slight.
The only real significance to this film is the director, Stephen Frears. From successes like "Dangerous Liaisons" to "The Grifters" and flops like "The Snapper," Frears' selection of stories is mixed at best. With "Mary Reilly," he uniquely captures the essence of the dismal and corrupted Victorian London, reminiscent of the horror films of old. The dreary atmosphere, ironically, is the only bright spot in this rather pretentious film. The lack of color and the emphasis on the mist and smog really convinces viewers of the film's desire to try and remain true to the essence of Stevenson's concepts. Frears' would have done better to cast his other liaison, Michelle Pfieffer, as Mary. However, direction cannot lead a sunken ship out of dark waters. Also, the dualistic score by George Fenton tries to bring themes to characters that otherwise would remain boring.
This interpretation of the Jekyll/Hyde tale is not exactly new. The twist of Jekyll as old and weak and Hyde as young and strong first appeared in the now classic Hammer film, "The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll" in 1961. The romantic emphasis has been part of the story since its initial conception as a play back in the 1890's. But the lack of emphasis on duality, the stark differences of man's nature, is what weakens this film's impact. Though many famous actors have played the part, from Fredric March to Jack Palance to a singing Kirk Douglas, John Malkovich tries to emphasize some kind of somber empathy that binds the hero/villain relationship; the only problem is that because he is secondary, he is never given a chance to express himself, neither to Mary nor the viewer.
No matter what the filmmakers do to try and disguise the film, it is ultimately the take on the horrific duality of the twisted and obsessed Dr. Jekyll. Because of that, the real payoff is his transformation into the fiendish Hyde. I will give the filmmakers a nod for trying to come up with something new in terms of the actual metamorphosis, but what we witness on screen is blasphemy to anyone who is fond of the classic tradition.
To put it mildly, the last sequence of the film, in which we witness the confrontation between Hyde/Jekyll and Mary, is both uninteresting and inappropriate. Although a suspenseful build-up between characters is supposedly what the filmmakers were trying to achieve, the scene comes out of nowhere, ending the film without the emotional resurgence that one would expect. What ends up on film is a sick, lackluster ending, whose transformation reminds me more of "Total Recall" than anything else.
This film is being marketed as the movie that will bring Julia Roberts back into the audience's favor; is it just a coincidence that Eddie Murphy is hoping to do the same with the other Jekyll/Hyde rip-off, "The Nutty Professor?" It will most likely do better than "I Love Trouble," but that isn't saying much.
In any case, it's a shame that this complex and interesting tale of terror hasn't had a good rendition in years. The David Wickes version with Michael Caine tried to be fresh but failed. Last year, moronic executives butchered the classic with the film "Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde," yet another flop-of-the-week B grade film. With the growing fame of the Jekyll and Hyde Club restaurant in New York and the return to the classic stories of fear and suspense, it would have been a good idea to try and make a movie like this. But for heaven's sake, next time let someone who knows the material spend the big bucks.