Doctor Jekyll (2023)

Okay, I am going to start this review with a note. I will always strive to refer to people by their preferred names and pronouns. It's not being "woke", contrary to vocal idiots who keep crying about it. It's offering the basic level of politeness that we automatically tend to offer to anyone while not obsessing about what toilet facilities they want to use. With that in mind, Eddie Izzard is credited here as Eddie Izzard, and I'll be referring to them as such here.

A reworking of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale, Doctor Jekyll played well to horror film festival audiences last year, with many singling out the performance from Izzard as being well worth your time. I was eager for this to hit the VOD market, and made time for it this week when I was able to purchase a digital copy of it. I'm happy to have given it my support, but I am a bit surprised by those who heaped so much praise on it, suspecting this may be another case of the festival bump that can often occur when watching a new film with a like-minded group of genre fans (something I am sure I have been guilty of myself). Or maybe it was also helped by the love for the Hammer Studios name, who are behind the distribution of it here in the UK.

Scott Chambers plays Rob, a young man trying to get his life back together after serving some time in prison. He ends up being given a job caring for the enigmatic Doctor Nina Jekyll (Izzard). Doctor Jekyll seems to like Rob, keen to give him a chance even while her assistant, Sandra (Lindsay Duncan), just seems to want rid of him. As we all know, but our lead character here crucially doesn't, you tend to have a Hyde wherever you have a Jekyll. This particular Hyde (Rachel Hyde) has a plan, and Rob is an unwittingly vital part of it.

Written by Dan Kelly-Mulhern, his first and only credit so far, this is a decent reworking of the text that feels majorly boosted by the canny use of Izzard in the titular role. The thematic strands being explored, and tied together into a strong narrative rope, feel both timely and well worth including to modernise and rework the timeless tale of terror. Director Joe Stephenson isn't a complete newcomer, having previously worked on a number of TV shows and a previous film, Chicken, where he also worked with both Chambers and Morgan Watkins (who plays Rob's brother, Ewan), and he handles things here very well, keeping the focus on the performances without making it all feel hampered by the fairly limited locations and small cast.

I cannot overstate how great Izzard is in the lead role here, a casting coup so inspired that it makes it impossible to imagine the film without their presence. They weave between light and darkness in ways that anyone familiar with the tale should expect, and their eloquence and verbosity perfectly matches the way that the bifurcated character is written. It's a shame that Chambers, so good in the aforementioned Chicken, cannot come close to matching Izzard. His character seems a bit too resigned to failure in the first half of the movie, but then becomes far too easygoing and unguarded in time for the third act to play out. Watkins is fine in his role, Duncan is enjoyable for her limited amount of screentime, and Robyn Cara plays a figure from Rob's past who may end up jeopardising the job that he needs to keep hold of. Oh, there's also a cameo from Simon Callow, who is used well for his fleeting appearance.

This is very good stuff, although it's never as intriguing or transgressive as it could have been. It's messy, especially when it falls apart during the final scenes, but it's full of elements to admire, from the characterisations to the commentary on "big pharma", and recommended to those after something that nicely blends the familiar with a sprinkling of modern freshness.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

I, Monster (1971)

It would appear that the last six months or so have been determined to prove to me that there are some movies I remained far too ignorant about, despite being aware of their existence. I finally saw The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas after finding out it was a musical, I finally TRIED to watch the glorious The Tales Of Hoffmann without realising it was almost a straightforward adaptation of a famous opera, and now . . . I get to I, Monster, a film I never realised was simply an adaptation of the famous Jekyll & Hyde tale from Robert Louis Stevenson.

Christopher Lee plays Charles Marlowe, a doctor who starts to research the possibilities of removing inhibitions from people with the help of drugs. Moving forward, he then considers whether or not you could distil/remove pure good and pure evil, a topic he has discussed with friends. Experimenting upon himself, he creates an ugly and immoral alter-ego, Edward Blake. As the behaviour of Blake gets worse, and more overt, Frederik Utterson (Peter Cushing) believes that Marlowe is being blackmailed. He attempts to save him from Blake, initially not realising that he is saving Marlowe from himself.

An Amicus film, although not one of their top-tier efforts, I, Monster benefits, as any film does, from the inclusion of both Lee and Cushing in major roles. One of those legends appearing in your film will get it a bonus point from me, both of them gets at least double, of course.

It's a shame that the film isn't a better one for them. Director Stephen Weeks wants to keep things quite classy and tame, but I can't help feeling that this would have been a better film if it had been more willing to "get down 'n' dirty" with the main character, showing his descent with more debauchery and a willingness to break the rules of society (a Dorian Gray without the good looks/portrait to allow him to be given the benefit of any doubt). This is also due to the script from Milton Subotsky. I understand the decision. Amicus, like Hammer, often tried to keep their horror films as a well-balanced blend of the classy and the bloody. This lacks the blood though, and lacks any real horror (although there's a great sequence at about the halfway point, or maybe just after, in which Blake is at his very worst). If you just want another adaptation of the classic tale, however, then this is the strength of the film.

Lee enjoys himself in the lead role, whether he's the polite and intelligent Marlowe or the brooding and evil Blake. He's excellent in either incarnation, and I wouldn't be surprised if he looked back on this film with great fondness. Cushing probably wouldn't though, being sidelined for a lot of the film as he is allowed to eventually come to realise the truth in time for the final battle. There's a decent selection of supporting players, but it's very much a film for Lee/Cushing fans.

I was strangely disappointed AND impressed by this. It does well in the telling of the original tale, but there's more that could have been done. It seems things were also hampered by the fact that it was originally intended to be a 3-D movie (and some scenes can still seem that way if you wear the old-style glasses, or simply try to watch it with a pair of glasses on that have a dark filter over one lens). It's still not a bad film though, which was guaranteed when I saw the top two names on the cast list.

Do check out this wonderful blog post I found HERE.

6/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Muppet Treasure Island (1996)

It's very hard for me to now look at Muppet Treasure Island and wonder why I didn't enjoy it so much when I first saw it. The presence of Kevin Bishop aside, who is at least much more bearable as a child actor as he is in adult form, this is a typically enjoyable Muppety adventure, based on the famous tale by Robert Louis Stevenson. The worst thing I can say about it is that it isn't The Muppet Christmas Carol.

Kevin Bishop plays young Jim Hawkins, a boy who ends up in receipt of a treasure map that he then takes on board a ship, The Hispaniola. The crew seem like a decent lot, especially that charming fellow named Long John Silver (played by Tim Curry), but there's mutiny and plundering in the air. And a small dose of cabin fever.

Brian Henson is credited as director, although there seems to have been a lot of work done by David Lane, and three writers put the script together, giving audiences the standard mix of fun characters, gags, and musical moments. The songs here may not be as memorable as some, there's only one that I can remember right now (to do with the aforementioned cabin fever), but they're serviceable enough and interspersed sparingly throughout the proceedings.

Bishop isn't as annoying as some child actors, which is a plus, and Curry adds another excellent performance to his CV with his portrayal of Silver. There are also small roles for Billy Connolly and Jennifer Saunders, both fun to watch even if they're only onscreen during the first quarter of the film. As for the Muppets, you get most of the usual suspects: Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, Rizzo The Rat, Sam The Eagle, Dr Bunsen and Beaker, and the grumpy old fellas who comment on what's going on (Statler and Waldorf). Another point against the film, however, is the fact that they're not given as much screentime as they get in other films. Miss Piggy, for example, appears onscreen about 20-25 minutes before the very end, while both Kermit and Fozzie are given lead roles that still somehow leave them feeling like minor players in this tale (because the focus is always on the main human characters).

Okay, having started with such optimism, I can now remember why I didn't love this the first time around. It's all down to the fact that there's more time spent with humans than Muppets, or so it seems, and there's a distinct lack of really memorable moments. Which still doesn't make this a terrible movie. It just stops it from being one of the better Muppet movies.

6/10

The movie is available in this set here.
Americans can get the movie here.

Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde (2003)

Sadly, this isn't a fun and cheeky riff on the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story (unlike Dr Jekyll & Sister Hyde). It's adult erotica that uses the essence of the tale to string together some scenes in which people have sexy times with each other. Usually women getting naughty with other women. There's a screenplay by Bruce G. Hallenbeck ("based on" the classic tale, of course) and I was about to dismiss his role immediately, but he does actually put some semblance of a storyline in the mix, even if it is hard to find sometimes.

A doctor (Julian Wells) is talking to an interviewer about her attempts to separate the pure from the lustful side of females. Meanwhile, her husband (Boz Tennyson) has sex with their maid (Ruby Larocca). things then move on to a scene that shows the good doctor dealing with one of her patients (played by popular adult movie starlet Misty Mundae), injecting her with a new serum and then they start to have sex. It's just all too lusty, however, and poor Misty Mundae is driven insane by her new, overworked sex drive. The doctor takes her own serum, transforming her into Heidi Hyde (not to be confused with the hi-de-hi-de-hi-de-hiiii from "Minnie The Moocher"), and then wanders the streets, quickly bumping into a young woman she wants to have sex with (Misty Mundae once more). They have sex. Andrea Davis plays someone who joins them. For sex. People start to get a bit upset at each other, but it's okay because they soon have some more sex.

That's it then. Indeed, it's probably the lengthiest plot description I've ever written for a film of this kind. Director Tony Marsiglia makes sure that everything is erotic enough for those who enjoy such things, but keeps everything far removed from anything that would be deemed hardcore. It's all very softly lit and teasingly presented.

The actors and actresses involved don't do a great job, but who watches this stuff to stumble across a future Oscar winner? Misty Mundae is the star of the show, but Julian Wells is very attractive too. As for Ruby Larocca and Andrea Davis, well there was just too much flesh on display by the time their main scenes came around and I was just waiting for the credits to roll. No I hadn't gone blind, you cheeky monkeys.

The strange thing about this stuff is that it's never really worked for me. I find some of the women attractive, of course, but seeing them in carefully edited lovemaking montages just doesn't come high on my list of priorities. I have so many other things I'd prefer to do: watch better movies, read a good book, take the dog for a walk, etc. etc. etc.

People will mock me, and often do, for this viewpoint and they'll wonder why I watch such stuff if I have no interest in it. Well, Misty Mundae AKA Erin Brown has gone on to make a bit of an impact in the horror genre so that's the first reason. The second reason? As mentioned in my review of An Erotic Werewolf In London, morbid curiosity forces me to see if any of these soft-core porn parodies ever contain enough elements showing that they care one bit about the original material.

Let's face it, I may have hated this film, but it wasn't exactly torture to sit through. As ever with these movies, anyone thinking of watching the film for their own personal happy happy joy joy will probably want to add a point or two.

3/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dr-Jekyll-Mistress-Hyde-DVD/dp/B00009RS0Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1361703610&sr=1-1

Treasure Island (1950)

If you don't know the story of Treasure Island - of Jim Hawkins, Long John Silver, The Hispaniola, mutiny and treachery and more - then you have missed out on some classic adventure goodness. The original story was written many years ago by Robert Louis Stevenson but I assure you that it holds up as a cracking yarn to this day, mainly because it throws in every pirate-related detail you have ever heard of and doesn't once apologise for it (of course, the cliches may not have seemed quite so cliched when the story was first published, considering how it pretty much created most of the established pirate traits).

This live action Disney take on the material isn't bad but the material deserves much better. It's such a great tale that I'd feel fairly assured in suggesting that it's almost impossible to make a mess of (though I'm sure that many have tried). The House Of Mouse have actually made a number of trips to this well with Muppet Treasure Island, Pirates Of The Caribbean (the ride and, of course, the popular movies deriving from the essence of Treasure Island) and Treasure Planet, to name but a few. This first attempt is probably the weakest of the ones I have seen but it still makes for passable entertainment.

Bobby Driscoll (known to Disney fans for his appearance in Song Of The South and his voicing of one Peter Pan) plays young Jim Hawkins, the lad who ends up with a pirate treasure map. He's also, along with everyone else in the tale, oblivious to the fact that Long John Silver (Robert Newton) is a scheming pirate. Which allows Long John Silver to help gather the crew that the few non-pirates need to acquire for their treasure hunt. Nobody seems suspicious despite the fact that Long John Silver has a parrot (one named after a pirate and that likes to squawk "pieces of eight", no less). Nobody seems to wonder just why Long John Silver says "aarrrrrr" so much. Surely these things are clues. Oh, and the fact that his name is Long John bloody Silver should have tipped people off.

Joking aside, the film suffers most from the same major problem that the source material had. Everything seems just a bit too over the top and obvious to take anyone by surprise. Those swarthy, coarse men are pirates?? They're all greedy enough to want the treasure for themselves?? Long John Silver has a cunning plan despite the fact that from the very beginning he looked like someone with a cunning plan?? Because the book left more to your imagination this wasn't really such a big problem. If things seemed too over the top and obvious then you could convince yourself that your imagination was at fault. The movie leaves you with no such excuse.

Byron Haskin directs competently enough and the script by Lawrence Edward Watkin translates the story quite faithfully. As the movie shared the big flaw of the book, so it shares the big plus point - the shifting moral compass of Long John Silver and the relationship that develops between him and Jim Hawkins. Everyone, and everything, is present and correct, from Billy Bones to Blind Pugh to the "black spot" to whatever else you can recall from the source material. Sadly, nothing really special is added to it all.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Treasure-Island-DVD-Bobby-Driscoll/dp/B00004CZAC