Doctor Jekyll<\/em> starts off strong, with a title screen that feels like the Hammer Films of old and will set horror fans\u2019 hearts a-racin\u2019 for the first \u2014 and last \u2014 time in this movie. The press synopsis calls Doctor Jekyll <\/em>a \u201cslow burn,\u201d but that is an overly kind way of saying that it\u2019s boring as shit for the bulk of its running time, despite Izzard\u2019s 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\u2019s little on screen that\u2019s new or interesting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kelly-Mulhern\u2019s 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\u2019s the extent of its devotion to the source material. There\u2019s value in reinventing the classics for contemporary audiences or offering a thoughtful diversion to a well-known story, but Doctor Jekyll<\/em> doesn\u2019t do either of those things. It just takes a whiff of the basic idea of Stevenson\u2019s novel \u2014 a good-hearted doctor who transforms into an evil murderer \u2014 and, uhh, that\u2019s it. That\u2019s the movie. Sure, it\u2019s set in an old English manor house, and it gestures at the ideas of Gothic tropes, duality, and gender, but it\u2019s all woefully underdeveloped. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Outside of Izzard\u2019s delightfully arch performance, there\u2019s so much that feels like it\u2019s 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<\/em>, 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u2014 but never weird enough \u2014 and Rob wonders what kind of a person he\u2019s really working for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With both its inspiration and the trans identity of its star, Doctor Jekyll<\/em> 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\u2019t 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\u2019s no evidence that Doctor Jekyll <\/em>has that kind of depth or intelligence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n “Doctor Jekyll” is out Friday in theaters and on demand. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/crookedmarquee.com\/stage8\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Jekyll2-1024x680.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nD+<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n