Is there a scarier name than Jekyll [Island], especially for gold standard advocates? Are you with me, monetary economists? Robert Louis Stevenson’s Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and its various films adaptations are also pretty frightening. The old classic Hammer made a gender-bender-ish version in 1971 with Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde. That tradition continues in the first film from the latest corporate relaunch of the venerable British horror studio, Joe Stephenson’s Doctor Jekyll, which opens today in theaters and on-demand.
Dr. Nina Jekyll is a brilliant research scientist, just like her beloved grandfather, Henry (fittingly portrayed in a flashback by actor Jonathan Hyde). That is right, this is technically a sequel or a re-quel, which is cool. Ordinarily, Dr. Jekyll’s solicitor and confidant Sandra Poole would never allow an ex-con former drug addict like Rob Stevenson (can you guess his middle name?) apply for the position of Jekyll’s live-in care-giver, but somehow his application slipped through the cracks and the good doctor takes a shine to him. Poole is quite adamant about Jekyll taking her meds precisely according to schedule, but the ominous significance is initially lost on Stevenson.
Suddenly, Poole stops coming around, but Jekyll assures him everything is fine, so don’t worry. Nevertheless, Stevenson grows increasingly alarmed when Jekyll’s behavior exhibits marked signs of schizophrenia. On the other hand, he also feels pressure to stay and make the best of things, for the sake of his cancer-stricken daughter Stevenson has not yet been allowed to meet.
New Hammer’s new Doctor Jekyll has been billed as a transexual Jekyll and Hyde, but Dan Kelly-Mulhern’s screenplay so subtly establishes Nina Jekyll’s status as such, it will be lost on many viewers. However, the casting of Eddie Suzy Izzard arguably speaks directly to the point. In the past, Izzard has wisely counseled everyone to just chill out with respect to pronouns, recognizing both he and she are understandable in her case, especially when since she still plays roles of either gender, but in this case, she is indeed a she.
Regardless, Izzard is suitably creepy as both Nina and “Rachel.” She is suitably flamboyant for a modern-day gothic monster, but regardless of identification, she also still has sufficient size to tower over a skinny recovering junkie, like Stevenson. Frankly, this film probably would not work as well had someone else been cast. (That is not to say Martine Beswick was not convincingly lethal as “Sister Hyde.” She just represented a different, femme fatale kind of danger.)