Mary Reilly (1996) User Reviews

Nothing Wrong With A Little Subetly Once In A While

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 20 May 2006]

I am glad to see a few other reviewers calling this "underrated." I figured I was the only person who actually liked this film. All the national critics sure hated this low-key re-telling of Jekyll and Hyde.

The muted colors with the grey overtones caught my eye and were very interesting to observe. Julia Roberts also was interesting to watch: no makeup, no smile, just sad, somber looks yet still appealing. Despite critics' comments to contrary, I found this an intelligent adaption of the famous story.

People don't care for subtly in films anymore. They want in-your-face smash- ups, gore, violent contrasts....and a lot of it. This movie is extremely low-key and subtle, although there are some bloody scenes.

I have to admit that I agree with one criticism, that it's hard to believe Roberts' character "Mary Reilly" would not recognize Jekyll from Hyde (played by John Malkovich) when he didn't change facial appearances! And, yes, the film, generally- speaking, is a real downer, a depressing tale.

Yet, for some odd reason, despite the above paragraph, I recommend the film to people who enjoy slower films and subtle suspense, even if they have to suspend a little believability. I thought it was oddly fascinating.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde through the Eyes of a Housemaid

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 7 January 2014]

In the nineteen century, in London, the dedicated housemaid Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is part of the staff under the command of the butler Mr. Poole (George Cole) that works for Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich). Mary is a traumatized woman that was abused by her father when she was a child and very devoted to Dr. Jekyll. One day, he gathers Mr. Poole and the servants in a room and tells that his assistant Mr. Edward Hyde will be work in his laboratory with free access to the house. Mary Reilly and her mates are unsuccessful to see the mysterious Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll trusts on Mary Reilly and she helps him, delivering letters to the notorious Mrs. Farraday (Glenn Close) that owns a brothel to clean the mess that Mr. Hyde does in the city. Mary Reilly is seduced by the educated Dr. Jekyll and by the reckless and violent Mr. Hyde.

"Mary Reilly" is a dramatic and romantic view of the classic story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde through the eyes of a housemaid. The plot is developed in slow pace and is not exactly an horror movie and maybe this is the reason that many viewers did not like this movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Segredo de Mary Reilly" ("The Secret of Mary Reilly")

Good and evil can coexist

[lib-4 · 7/10 · 1 June 1999]

John Malkovich was the perfect actor to play/ jekyll hyde- he personfies the good and evil that can coexist in a person. I was very impressed that Julie Roberts had the demeanor of a household servant down so well. My husbands' family comes from a line of women who were domestics when they first came to America in the 1880's-- and his mother said that's how they had to act. Even though it was a little slow- I liked the way the story developed. The fact that Mary can't hate her abusive father because she came from him- helps the doctor understand the dilemna. Altogether a satisfying movie that takes a different view of the Stevenson classic.

Julia Roberts in a horror? Better than you think

[evabbs · 28 March 2002]

I thought it was actually a very good film. I didnt realise when I started watching it that it would be so graphic, I never thought of Roberts doing a Period Horror, and she does better than i would have thought... although the accent is a bit dodgy at times. John is excellent- a very scary Hyde/Jekkel! Glenn Close makes a scarely good whore mistress! all in all a good film well worth watching!

this may have been Julia Roberts's most interesting role ever

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 7 January 2007]

I usually don't like Julia Roberts. She focuses way too much on looking perfect and that dominates her movies. But she plays a different kind of role in "Mary Reilly". As Dr. Jekyll's (John Malkovich) maid getting seduced by both him and Mr. Hyde, she gives the impression of someone trapped in Victorian England wondering how to get out. And Mr. Hyde knows just how to seduce. Even knowing how evil Mr. Hyde is, you really grow to like him; he's a sort of rebel against Victorian mores and the class system.

I think that the best line in the movie is when Mary tells Dr. Jekyll about her father's (Michael Gambon) drinking problem; it was almost too self-referential! As it is, I think that Malkovich's performance in this movie might have been what made me view this movie positively, more than Julia Roberts's performance. But either way, you'll probably like it. It's not Stephen Frears's best movie, but still pretty interesting. Also starring Glenn Close.

Eerily memorable

[pogostiks · 7/10 · 21 March 2008]

OK, so this film was trashed by the critics... and I would bet a fortune that the average MTV generation movie-goer will practically fall asleep watching it - but I posit that their trouble with this film says more about them than it does about Frear's Gothic tale.

There are weaknesses - above all the fact that everyone else (including Julia Roberts ) has an accent but Malkovitch refuses to even attempt one. What's an American accent doing in the middle of all this? Malkovitch also seems to be channeling his own performance in Frear's masterpiece, Dangerous Liaisons - but if you haven't seen that film you should love what he does in this one.

But other than that, I found the slow pace to be totally gripping... The entire story is told from the viewpoint of Mary Reilly, and I have never seen Julia Roberts do a better job than here. She is wonderfully effective... it is worth watching this film only for her performance. But it is also worth watching because of the attention to period detail. You really get a feeling of what it must have been like to live in the 19th century. The manners, the utensils, the class differences...the psycho-sexual straight-jacket.

I will not give any details about the film - I'll let those who watch it discover it for themselves. But I would like to say one thing about the pace. This is not an action film, it is not even a horror film in the traditional sense. It is mainly a story of discovery - dealing with the slow realization of hidden desires and uncontrolled motivations; as such it should not - nay, could not be done at a quicker pace. It's really too bad that fewer and fewer people today seem to be capable of watching something that is subtle and slow. The loss is theirs.

Interesting

[Angela_Ray71367 · 4/10 · 11 May 2006]

This film was actually very interesting. John Malkovich was his usual mesmerizing self. The only problem I had with this movie was Julia Roberts, who to this date does the WORST IRISH ACCENT EVER!!! So I think it goes without saying that while Julia is a very good actress, she can't do Broadway or accents! If it were not for Julia, I would have scored this film much higher. I would have like to see someone more able in her role. Perhaps Kate Winslett, or heck even Gweneth Paltrow! Julia was truly out of her depth in this film and it shows. She lacks confidence and in some scenes appears to be bored by it all. I'm glad I saw this on video instead of paying full price at the theater!

Something Kenneth Branagh Would Do

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 12 October 2015]

A housemaid (Julia Roberts) falls in love with Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich) and his darkly mysterious counterpart, Mr. Hyde (John Malkovich).

Stephen Frears, an excellent director, cast two very big names and put them in a twist of the Jekyll and Hyde story. This is not a horror tale, and the violence and gore are kept to a minimum. In some sense it is a love story, but only in the most general of terms. More accurately, it is a woman who is loyal to her employer.

The strangest thing about this is how little they tried to make the two halves look different. When Hyde comes out, he is still obviously Malkovich. How can they not notice? Someone remarks that they bear a resemblance, but it is much more than that.

Slow, unfocused romance, one of the weakest Jekyll & Hyde adaptations

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 28 July 2016]

This dull reworking of the Jekyll and Hyde story reposits the whole thing as a doomed Gothic romance, with mousy maid Julia Roberts working in the household of John Malkovich and gradually coming to realise that all isn't well with her employer. MARY REILLY suffers hugely from the random feminist slant on the story, which substitutes meek romance for the original story's full-blooded horror, rendering it into a weak and unwieldy production.

I suspect that most viewers like myself will have a hard time with Roberts's attempts at an Irish accent. It's one of the worst accents to come from Hollywood, up there with Kevin Costner's attempts at an English accent in ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THIEVES; embarrassing, in fact. At least Malkovich has the good sense to not even attempt to do one, although his hammy overacting is off-putting in itself. The film does contain one surprise CGI effect, which looks appallingly dated to the modern viewer.

As a film, MARY REILLY is slow, unfocused, and hampered by the viewer's knowledge of the story which means there are no surprises in store. The characters are poorly written and Reilly herself is unsympathetic - no Jane Eyre here, with hidden reserves of wit and courage, just somebody who doesn't even deserve the camera time. The one good thing about this film is that it features roles for British character actors like George Cole, Ciaran Hinds, Kathy Staff, and Michael Gambon. If I'm honest I would have preferred the film with Cole in the Jekyll role and Staff as the lead, they show up the Hollywood stars that much.

Moody re-telling of Dr. Jeckyl story

[dave13-1 · 7/10 · 26 April 2012]

Critics and audiences were bored with this remake of the Dr. Jeckyl tale when it first came out, but there is nonetheless a lot here to like. The viewpoint shift, allowing viewers to watch the familiar tale play out from the perspective of a serving woman in the Doctor's household, gives both a romantic edge to the picture and makes points about the place and role of women/servants in English society in Jeckyl's day. Roberts is very good as the lowest member of the household staff, trying to hold the Doctor himself and the household together while at the same time striving not to get above her station. And the grim, nearly black-and-white, dread-filled landscape of the picture is great to look at and memorable.

dull and flat

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 24 September 2016]

Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is the lowly chambermaid in the home of Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich). She is one of several servants and he is alone. He is experimenting in his lab and claims to have made a breakthrough to Mary. He announces a new visitor Edward Hyde is coming. He develops a closer relationship with Mary over the objections of the butler Mr. Poole. She reveals her abused past. He sends her to deliver a letter in secret to whorehouse madam Mrs. Farraday (Glenn Close) who agrees to rent a room to Mr. Hyde.

It's all gray, dull, and flat. There is no tension and no thrills. There is definitely no mystery as the story unfolds inevitably. This is very boring. This has an old fashion Gothic horror style. The movie keeps going and going with the same flat unrelenting tone. Roberts is doing a lot of deer-in-the-headlights acting which only adds to the dull, flat feel.

This film gets better as you watch it

[MarieGabrielle · 9/10 · 28 February 2006]

Initially, I stayed away from this movie as it received merciless reviews. The fact that Julia Roberts was in it also was another obstacle. Yet as other reviewers have mentioned, she actually gives a good performance. John Malkovich is excellent as the tormented Jekyll/Hyde character.

The cinematography and moods are haunting. One feels they are actually re-living the Victorian era, where the servants woke up at 4AM to complete their drudgery. The kitchen conjures up the stark realities of survival, the eel that is chopped up for dinner (while alive) Mary Reilly turns white as a sheet as she sees the animal die. I actually began to appreciate Ms. Roberts' performances more after this film (also in films like "Mona Lisa Smile", she projects a certain believability; is not just a physical presence). At one point, there is a most effective scene wherein Roberts must see to her mother's burial, and goes to the tenement to make arrangements. The landlord has placed her mother's body in a damp cellar closet, saying she is "most comfortable" as he hands her one shilling, the only money Roberts will inherit. Roberts then says; ..."ä poor wage for a lifetime of drudgery"... We are reminded of the workhouses of Dickens, and the rigid class structures which she must survive...

While the dialect is at times choppy, she is believable as an Irish maid; and the supporting cast also lends credence to this story. Malkovich varies his performance between Jekyll/Hyde, and it is effective and visceral.

If you initially avoided this film, I would highly recommend seeing it now. The atmosphere and music are haunting and sad. 9/10

The woman who loved Dr.Jekyll

[sol1218 · 7/10 · 3 March 2011]

****SPOILERS**** Somewhat altered version of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic "Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde" with the sweet kindly and understanding Doctor Jekyll, John Malkovich, having a love interest who's a housemaid Mary Reilly, Julia Roberts, at his London home where her conducts his secrets experiments.

Mary had a hard life with her being abused both psychically and mentally by her drunken father Mr. Reilly, Michael Gambon, that she in fact feels that's her lot in life and can do nothing about it. It's working at Dr.Henry Jekyll place that for the first time in her life Mary finds kindness and understanding for her many problems that includes the scars that her father gave her, like having rats chew at her, while she was a child. The fact that Dr.Jekyll takes such an interest in Mary has her boss the manager of the Jekyll house Mr. Poole, George Cole, get a bit jealous at her for his master, Dr.Jekyll, spending far more time with Mary then with him.

Mary for her part is a bit perplexed of Dr.Jekyll in his going in and out of his both house and laboratory all hours of the night as if he's hiding something that he doesn't want anyone to find out about! It's one day when Dr.Jekyll sends Mary on a errand to a cat-house in the red light district in the seedy part of London that she realizes that the good doctor is up to no good. Not that he's a customer of the place but that his special assistant at his laboratory someone named Edward Hyde has made a mess of the place,by brutalizing the hookers, every time he goes there. Mary is told by the angry cat-house Madam Mrs. Farraday, Glenn Close, that Eddie or Mr. Hyde has gotten out of hand and she can't keep covering up for him anymore. Dr.Jekyll in trying to smooth things out by giving her payoff money, so she doesn't report Eddie to the police, also asks Mrs. Farraday, through Mary, to drop in and see him at his laboratory to talk things over! As it turns out Mrs. Farraday is met at the house not by Dr. Jekyll but Mister Hyde who ends up doing her in by making her at least a head shorter!

***SPOILERS*** AS we and Mary Reilly soon find out that he mysterious Edward Hyde is really Doctor Jekyll in the flesh. The doc had been having splitting headaches of late and developed this medication for them. As things turned out the medication did stop the headaches but it turned the genteel and civil Dr.Jekyll into the murderous and sex crazed Edward or Mister Hyde! Edward Hyde for his part took a shine to Mary and unlike his other-self Doctor Jekyll he had no trouble in him not controlling himself in his feeling for her. It's when Edward Hyde attacks and kills one of the late Madam Farrady's John's or customers at her cat or whorehouse the member of British Parliament and good friend of Dr.Jekyll Sir.Danvers Carew, Claran Hinds, that the cops or London Bobbies are called in to check things out! It's discovered that the murder weapon that Hyde killed Carew with, by bashing his skull in, was Doctor Jekyll's silver plated walking stick!

***MAJOR SPOILERS*** Doctor Jekyll now knowing that his life is doomed in that his other-self, by Mister Hyde manipulating his headache medication, has completely taken over his body and asks Mary to do what he doesn't have the guts to to in her doing him in and putting an end to this mesaghas,insanity in Yiddish, once in for all. Mary in what has to be an act of eternal love does what the doctor told her to do but in that she leaves herself open in her being in the wrong place at the wrong time, at the scene of the Sir. Danvers murder, to take the rap for the crime committed by the now departed Dr.Jekyll/Mr. Hyde and having to pay for It very possibly with her life!

I shudder to think what would have followed if this misfire had been a box office smash

[MBunge · 4/10 · 6 October 2010]

This film tells the story of the chambermaid who worked for Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Thankfully, this turgid mess bombed at the box office so we were spared sequels about Dracula's chauffeur, Frankenstein's tax attorney and the Wolfman's proctologist.

Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) works as a maid for Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich) in 19th century London. I kid you not when I state that this movie essentially follows Mary around while she does her household chores and every so often we get a scene that peeks in on the classic tale of Jekyll and Hyde. If you don't know what that story's about, go down to the damn library and check out the book or watch one of the 37,000,000,000 other versions of the tale that have been committed to film. Basically, this thing is a Cliff's Notes version of Jekyll and Hyde, crossed with a documentary on the brutal drudgery of 19th century working class Britons, mixed with a Lifetime movie about a woman overcoming her memories of fatherly abuse.

The heart of Mary Reilly is supposed to be about the attraction Mary feels for both Jekyll and Hyde and the affection they feel in return. A big problem is that it's hard to believe any man being lovestruck by this pale-faced woman with Conan O'Brien eyebrows. Julia Roberts is deliberately stripped of most of the beauty artifice that props up her appearance in other films and the audience is undeniably confronted with the fact that Roberts is not that pretty. She has very distinct features that need to be accommodated on screen and that doesn't happen here.

Another defining negative about this film is very poor acting jobs by three big stars. Roberts intermittently adopts an Irish accent that rivals Kevin Costner's dialect in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves for its "now you hear it, now you don't" quality. John Malkovich does worse than sleepwalk through his double role, even giving Edward Hyde an extremely pronounced limp early in the film which completely disappears later on. Either Malkovich and director Stephen Frears both forgot about the limp or Malkovich just got tired of doing it and Frears couldn't make him. Glenn Close is almost as bad as the owner of a London brothel. Her entire performance consists of giving her character an Elvis lip curl.

The bottom line is that Mary Reilly is a movie about an uninteresting woman who stands still while an amazing story happens around her. The idea of telling a famous tale from the perspective of a minor character isn't a bad one. A movie about the London cop trying to track down and capture Edward Hyde sounds good to me. The trick is the minor character actually has to do something important in the story. Mary Reilly simply hovers and watches like the boring person on a reality show.

Unless you're dying to view YET ANOTHER crappy adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde, skip this film.

Seductive And Compelling

[katyggls · 7/10 · 7 June 2005]

I found the movie Mary Reilly at the store last night, so I bought it. I've seen it about 20 times, and I like it more every time I see it.

If you've never heard of it, it's because it had awful promotion (read: no promotion), and it didn't do well at the box office, probably due to the fact that period dramas are hopelessly out of style.

Essentially, the movie is Robert Louis Stevenson's tale, The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde turned on its' head. The story is told from the point of view of the title character, Dr. Jekyll's housemaid, Mary Reilly, played by Julia Roberts. Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde are terrifyingly portrayed by John Malkovich. His transformation between the two characters is stunning. He actually looks like a different man, but only his clothes and hair color have changed. And although Julia Roberts' accent leaves much to be desired (that unmistakable twang somehow works its' way through), her portrayal of the character is actually rather brilliant. She perfectly shows us a woman who is at once surrounded by fear, but also touchingly courageous.

This movie makes a careful examination of the rigid Victorian mores that inspired Stevenson's classic, and of the lengths the human heart will go to escape them.

Slow and lacks juice

[Wizard-8 · 11 October 2015]

"Mary Reilly" was a pretty big box office bomb when it was released to theaters. Seen almost twenty years later, the problems that it had back then are still apparent today. Actually, in many ways it is a well made movie. Director Stephen Frears does manage to capture the cold and bleak feel of London in the Victorian era. And the two headline stars, Julia Roberts and John Malkovich, do give perfectly fine performances. Unfortunately, the central story of the movie simply isn't that interesting. The movie has the promising idea of telling the very familiar Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story from an observer's point of view, but it's told in such a slow style and not terribly exciting or intriguing. (It also doesn't help that what Hyde does in his various rampages for the most part remains unclear.) As I indicated, the movie has some good features, but all the same it ends up being one case where the book is a lot better.

A noble attempt by Roberts to try something different...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 28 November 2006]

From Valerie Martin's novel, a surprisingly literate and serious-minded drama about a housemaid (Julia Roberts) working in the residence of creepy Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich); she's inexplicably drawn to him and his dark experiments, slowly earning his trust and becoming his after-hours confidante. One wouldn't think this downbeat material suitable for mega-watt star Roberts, but her lead performance is fragile, low-keyed and admirable; her Irish accent quavers, and in her quest to become this meek woman she loses her innate sweetness, yet it's still respectable work. Malkovich, on the other hand, is terribly one-note, and the film waits too long to spring surprises on us (they're all in the final act). Director Stephen Frears loves a romantically gloomy atmosphere, and his picture is absorbing and handsomely-made, but it may leave many viewers feeling testy and impatient. **1/2 from ****

Um, no... No very much

[onepotato2 · 2/10 · 24 March 2009]

I believe it was Ray Pride who wrote the classic line "Mary Reilly is like a painting... only slower." Yeah, the pacing is not good. Yeah, Julia Roberts is a slight problem. But there are three more massive problems with the movie.

1) Viewpoint - Telling the story of Hamlet through the eyes of Rosencranz and Gildenstern? Sounds promising! Telling the story of Oz through the eyes of the Wicked Witch? Could be interesting! Telling the story of Dr Jekyll (y'know? ...the exciting character!!) through an extremely uninteresting servant too timid to have a viewpoint? Um, no. No very much. No times a hundred. This device holds no potential.

2) Malkovich - Characters in the movie are supposed to believe Malkovich is two people. But this guy can't be bothered to develop one role in a normal movie, let alone two characters here; horrible, horrible piece of casting! He gives the same contemptuous, bland, disinterested, passive-aggressive performance he's been overpaid for, for twenty years. He fails to modulate anything an actor has under his control, generating tedium on screen, and ennui in viewers.

3) Familiarity - We know this story. If you haven't found a way to embroider it, you can't just prolong its only revelation (duality) for an hour and a half. Because it makes the characters seem severely dull-witted. No one has two identical-looking antagonists in their life who are never seen at the same time. Every moment is the same as the next.

There's a belated spfx ending which is wildly out of place, and feels like the 25th attempt to save a movie. The combined talents of the three (Roberts, Malkovich & Frears) did not produce sparks, excitement or even a feeble puff of smoke.

A bad and dreary film

[wjfickling · 6/10 · 10 December 2005]

There is always something creepy about John Malkovich, and he exploits his creepiness to the hilt in this film. Too bad somebody didn't tell him that he's supposed to be an Engish creep, because he maintains his American accent throughout. Now and then he seems to remember that the film is set in London and makes a pathetic attempt at an accent that sounds more US upper class than British. Ditto for Julia Roberts: American accent throughout, although she occasionally remembers that she's supposed to be Irish and takes a stab at an Irish lilt. Maybe the production was too broke to hire diction coaches? Who knows? The misplaced accents might be overlooked if it were an interesting film. However, it creeps along at a snails pace and is relentlessly dreary to boot. Come to think of it, maybe this was atmospherics, the result of an attempt to create a somber mood consistent with the subject matter. If so, it was a success in spades, although it stretched credibility as far as it could go. Doesn't the sun ever shine in London? Are people always shivering when they step outside? The Jekyll-Hyde story has been filmed many times. It is always a challenge to decide how to make up the lead actor for the Mr. Hyde scenes. In this film, they keep it simple: John Malkovich plays Jekyll with salt and pepper hair and a Van Dyke; when he plays Hyde, his hair has a henna tint and he is clean shaven. This got me to thinking: what are we to assume that the character does when he goes from Hyde to Jekyll? Put on false whiskers, maybe? Stop to take the henna out of his hair? Again, who knows? If you feel you must watch this film, I recommend doing so around 11 at night. It would make an excellent cure for insomnia. 6/10

Lacklustre attempt to make a different version of Jekyll and Hyde!

[The_Void · 5/10 · 5 February 2006]

Mary Reilly offers a new spin on Robert Louis Stevenson's classic novel "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde", and in that respect; this really should have been a lot better. In fact, whichever way you look at it; this should have been a better film. The story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a great base for a story, and it's shocking to see that this is all that could be mustered. I don't know if Valerie Martin's novel is any better; but given the fact that a film was made of it, I'm inclined to think that it is. The film sees the shocking transformation of Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde from the point of view of the good doctor's maid, who just so happens to be called Mary Reilly. This is interesting because is shows the story we already know from a different perspective, thus giving it new life; but it loses so much in terms of the focus of the actual story; things such as the reasons for the experiments, and the crimes committed by Mr Hyde aren't touched on at all, and that means that any interest generated by change of perspective is swiftly cancelled out.

The film stars Julia Roberts, who takes the lead role. It's not a good performance from her; the atmosphere around her gives the impression that she's either uncomfortable or bored (or both), and that ensures that she's never much fun to watch. The usually brilliant John Malkovich takes the double role of Dr Jekyll and his alter ego, and even he fails to make an interesting go of it. He's this film's biggest asset - but his performance loses credibility due to the fact that Mr Hyde is OBVIOUSLY the same person as Dr Jekyll! The fact that it's based on a story we all know doesn't help the film where the plotting is concerned. The audience knows that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are different versions of the same man - and that means we are left waiting for the characters to catch up. Mary Reilly makes this dramatic irony it's centrepiece, and it's not a good move as any intrigue is killed before it has chance to get off the ground. To be fair, the film does a few good moments of suspense - but these are few and far between, and all I can recommend doing with this film is missing it, and seeing either Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 classic, or the hilarious Hammer take; Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde!

glad I saw it but not great and not set in London.

[ib011f9545i · 6/10 · 2 December 2020]

As someone from Edinburgh Scotland who is a big Julia Roberts fan it is surprising it has taken me so long to watch this film. It has a poor reputation but is neither great or a disaster,somewhere in between. Julia Roberts plays an Irish maid in Victorian Edinburgh. The film never mentions the city is Edinburgh that is where it was filmed and it is where the book is set. Every British city is not London and the author of the book set the story in Edinburgh due to Burke and Hare and Deacon Brodie,look them up and be amazed. In Edinburgh the rich and poor lived close to each other,so its seems did good and evil. A film of Deacon Brodie's life would be amazing. But back to this film. Julia Roberts plays an Irish migrant to Edinburgh who is a shy but pretty maid. I won't say anymore about the plot but sadly this is not a great film but it is worth seeing

A must for insomniacs.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 16 November 2007]

Mary Reilly is set in Victorian London where Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) is a housemaid to a Dr. Henry Jekyll (John Malkovich), he treats her & the rest of the servants well so she is relatively satisfied with her life. However, the calmness of the household is broken when Jekyll starts to stay out all night, he then says he will be collaborating with an assistant named Mr. Edward Hyde (John Malkovich) on his experiments & he should be treated as they treat him. Reilly meets Mr. Hyde who turns out to be a bit of a bad lad, meanwhile she has secret affections for her master Dr. Jekyll & soon realises they are both one & the same person...

Directed by Stephen Frears I will openly admit right here & now that Mary Reilly bored me stiff, I honestly wanted to switch it off & go to sleep but in the fairness of this comment I decided to endure the final 40 minutes. The script by Christopher Hampton was based on the novel of the same name by Valerie Martin which itself obviously took inspiration from the Robert Louis Stevenson novel The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, who was it exactly that thought telling the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from the perspective of his housemaid was a good idea? No offence but it sounds lame just thinking about it & sure enough the finished film is total crap that I personally found ways to hate it on many levels. From the absolute tedium of it all to the snails pace, to the awful romance between the main character's & the slushy sentimental drama to the fact it's one of the most boring films I've seen. I didn't like anyone in it, I didn't like the way the makers have taken a decent horror themed story & turned it into some horrible tedious romance & the lack of any horror or scares just sinks it without trace as far as I'm concerned. By the way did I mention it was boring?

Director Frears does alright, to give the film credit where it deserves it the production design & look of it are fabulous. This would give any period Hammer Horror flick a good run for it's money, then again I suppose you can stage a film like this when you have nearly 50 million dollars as your budget. Apparently Tim Burton was set to direct this but decided to make Ed Wood (1994) instead, he might have actually injected some horror & mystery into the plot while still retaining the Gothic romance just like he did with his excellent Sleepy Hollow (1999). There's no real horror or scares in Mary Reilly, it has a nice fog enshrouded look but little else. Animal lovers beware, there are shots of eels being killed & skinned, being the old romantic that he is Mr. Hyde takes Mary to a slaughter house & again there are various animal carcasses strung up being skinned & gutted along with various organs in buckets & strewn across the floor. A man is also killed with the end of his walking cane in the films most violent scene.

I am amazed this had a budget of near $50,000,000, it doesn't look like it although it's undeniably well staged & made. According to the IMDb Roberts got paid $10,000,000 for this, well she's terrible in it & her accent is awful. Shot on location in London, Scotland & in Pinewood studios. Generally speaking though there's a great cast here including Malkovich, George Cole, Kathy Staff, Michael Gombon & Glenn Close as the owner of a London whore house. At the 1997 Razzie Awards Mary Reilly was nominated for two, Julia Roberts as worst actress which she should have won & Stephen Frears as worst director which considering the film looks alright is maybe a bit harsh.

Mary Reilly is in my opinion a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that, when I watch a film I want to be entertained & not bored out of my skull & that's just the way it is. Thank god I saw it on cable TV & didn't spend any of my hard earned money on it. Mary Reilly sucks & she should have stuck to being a lowly servant girl.

Underrated Film

[Bishonen · 9/10 · 5 February 1999]

This has to be one of the most maligned films of the past couple of years; it's virtually shoved under the carpet every time Julia Robert's career is mentioned and it's generally dismissed as a bore. And in a lot of ways, it IS boring; not a lot happens during the course of the plot and as a horror film it utterly fails to provide a sense of urgency and fright in the conventional sense.

It's also one of the most elaborate, mysterious and beautifully conceived big-budget fantasies committed to film. The fact of its plodding storyline is, in a sense, besides the point of its true merit; that it is a dark, intensely brooding look at a woman's damaged sexuality and psyche and the oppressive times in which she existed. The original Valerie Martin book ingeniously transmogrified the Robert Louis Stevenson story into an examination of a lost female soul who finds her redemption in a fog-shrouded hell. Stephen Frear's film is in every respect a successful mood piece, a meditation on an individual's dark journey into not just a world of physical violence but her own crippled sense of selfhood and history of abuse. More than most other contemporary films about the Victorian era, this film captures in meticulous and visceral detail the horrors of the Industrial Age---the poverty, the pollution-ridden streets filled with animal gore and filth, and the era's preoccupation/repulsion of the human body and the ominous glare of scientific knowledge gone awry in a society ill-prepared to meet the consequences. The cinematography and production design (by the great Stuart Craig) are breathtaking. A swinging door, partially obscuring the surgically opened corpse on a table...Mary making her way through the streets of the market, surrounded by animal viscera...the shock of a roomful of a prostitute's remains, savagely gutted by a demonic hand...rats in the sewer, swarming into the crevices of Mary's mind...the Doctor's operating theater, like a coliseum of depravity...Mary, lost in the fog.

These images were indelible to me and entertained my consciousness far more than any typical horror film could hope to. Julia Roberts, for all her trouble with the Irish accent and going against her image as "America's sweetheart", is the very picture of a haunted and ravaged soul, nearly destroyed by the abuse and poverty of her childhood and bewildered by the mysterious machinations of her homicidal employer. She lends a great deal of vulnerability and conviction to her role and carries the film in ways beyond dialogue and posturing. Not once does she flash her trademark million-dollar smile but what she gives to the film is far more valuable than glitz and in her looks and inflections reveals more on-screen than most of her other films combined.

This film won't appeal to most people. And admittedly, it does fail in so many ways that a lot of audiences will be turned off. A lot of people will definitely be bored to tears by the slow pace and "what the H*ll is happening?!?!?" quality of the narrative. But for viewers who liked Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast", Neil Jordan's "Comany of Wolves" Caleb Carr's book "The Alienist" or perhaps Ken Russell's "Gothic", this is worth a try. It should not be written off as just another big-budget Hollywood failure, because its aims, whether conscious or not, are quite different from your average thriller or period film. Approach it with an open mind, be prepared for a dark and disconcerting vision, and you might be rewarded because this film is unique, baroque, different and great.

Why bother with accents?

[Psimple · 6/10 · 22 February 2006]

While I found the movie interesting, dark, and mildly absorbing if a bit affected...the whole things would have been given a higher score had Julia Roberts picked an accent and stuck with it! What was going through her head? Am I Irish? Am I a Southern Belle? Am I the same character I played in "Sleeping with the Enemy"? Did I have an accent in that movie? When I'm irritated with the other servants, I'll be lower cockney. When I'm terrified by the "Master", I'll be a bit Southern... No accent is a good accent! Her poor voice coach! I did however, appreciate the change of pace for Julia. Of course, I'm talking about the bangs she's wearing in this film. I did not see this as a big stretch for her as far as acting goes. Take her character from "Sleeping With the Enemy", the mealy, mousy woman she was while under the abusive reign of her husband, and lengthen that role. Add an annoying in and out accent and some creepy love scenes...Voila! No, not a huge stretch there.

British Accents & Boredom

[TRlNITY · 4/10 · 24 July 2017]

This movie is filmed so beautifully. The costumes, the mood, its lovely.

But this movie is a bore. And possibly the most cringe-worthy part of it is Julia Roberts' absolutely hideous impression of a British accent. WHY WHY WHY the director didn't stop the bleeding is beyond me. Every time she opens her mouth you're transported right back to modern times. It completely takes you out the film and the actress out of the character.

Really Hollywood, we will suspend disbelief. If the actor can't pull it off DON'T do it. I love Julia Roberts as much as everyone else but this isn't where her acting strengths lie.