Kimber Myers
In theory, a modern-day adaptation of Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde made by Hammer Films and starring Eddie Izzard has all the elements to be an absolute blast. And indeed, Izzard is having a hell of a good time every time she appears on screen as the title character (and her evil alter ego) in Doctor Jekyll, but the same cannot be said for the audience for most of this thankfully short film; it had the potential to be a lot of things — including sharp, campy, creepy, and/or fun — but the result is mostly just bland and devoid of details.
Doctor Jekyll starts off strong, with a title screen that feels like the Hammer Films of old and will set horror fans’ hearts a-racin’ for the first — and last — time in this movie. The press synopsis calls Doctor Jekyll a “slow burn,” but that is an overly kind way of saying that it’s boring as shit for the bulk of its running time, despite Izzard’s best efforts and a few cool images. Director Joe Stephenson has a good eye, particularly for shots that use silhouette and lighting, but his sense of pacing and tension is not as well developed. For his first credited screenplay, Dan Kelly-Mulhern tackles a new version of the oft-adapted Robert Louis Stevenson Gothic novel, but there’s little on screen that’s new or interesting.
Kelly-Mulhern’s script pays homage to the original author by calling our hero Rob (Scott Chambers, who has a marvelously weird little giggle), short for Robert Louis Stevenson, of course, but that’s the extent of its devotion to the source material. There’s value in reinventing the classics for contemporary audiences or offering a thoughtful diversion to a well-known story, but Doctor Jekyll doesn’t do either of those things. It just takes a whiff of the basic idea of Stevenson’s novel — a good-hearted doctor who transforms into an evil murderer — and, uhh, that’s it. That’s the movie. Sure, it’s set in an old English manor house, and it gestures at the ideas of Gothic tropes, duality, and gender, but it’s all woefully underdeveloped.
Outside of Izzard’s delightfully arch performance, there’s so much that feels like it’s missing. Given that I struggled to make it through its 90-minute runtime I hate to ask for more from a bore like Doctor Jekyll, but the story lacks the kind of details that would have put any flesh on its bones. Rob is fresh out of a stint in prison, and he’s desperate for a job, so he can earn the right to visit his sick infant daughter. His brother (Morgan Watkins) manages to snag him an interview with Nina Jekyll (Izzard), a billionaire trans pharma CEO, who remains reclusive after a scandal. Despite the protests of Nina’s friend and confidante (Lindsay Duncan), Rob gets the job and begins caring for Nina in her home, where he is responsible for serving her meals and ensuring she takes her medication. Soon, things start to get weird — but never weird enough — and Rob wonders what kind of a person he’s really working for.
With both its inspiration and the trans identity of its star, Doctor Jekyll takes the surprising approach of acknowledging that Nina is trans through an on-screen news headline and then basically moving on. (It is the only surprising thing about this very dull movie.) Trans people deserve to have stories that aren’t just about their existence as trans people, but choosing this particular tale with its themes is such a weird one to basically ignore it. That may be the point, but there’s no evidence that Doctor Jekyll has that kind of depth or intelligence.
D+
“Doctor Jekyll” is out Friday in theaters and on demand.
