Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, from then to now.

and it was as an ordinary secret sinner that I at last fell before the assaults of temptation



My relationship with the story of doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is not bound in unconditional love, it's bound in unconditional fascination that have captured me in its net and have evolved to down right obsession which demands me to see everything that have to do with the franchise, and boy do I have my work cut out for me, I have seen so much doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and there keeps being more. both stuff that is long time lost and really difficult to dig up, or just pops up out of nowhere and there keeps being made more all over. how sweet is that!?
or not sweet, because if there is something most Jekyll and Hyde interpretations does, it's sucking. There are enormous amounts of suck in the history of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde interpretations, in fact only one tenth seems to be any good, luckily when it does work it is extraordinary good, sexy, dirty and so extremely fascinating. The movies I am going to pick out are the ones I personally find to be any good, which is probably also the most well known films anyhow. but let's have a look shall we.
Jekyll and Hyde is about the good man and honorable doctor, Doctor Jekyll who finds away to separate his bad side from the good by taking a drug, and then turns into a whole other person "Mr. Hyde" who ad the beginning is nothing but Jekyll's lustful side and just acts as a stupid bully, until it all eventually gets out of hand as Hyde gets out of controls and literately kills people, while Jekyll can do nothing about as he is now turning into Hyde without the drugs, and it all goes up in a point.



This book sucks, never in my life have I been more disappointed as when I read the original Jekyll and Hyde book or "the Strange case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as the actual title is, as a fifteen year old. okay, the book is okay I guess, but it is just not what you would expect from this tale. Exactly like the original books of "the Scarlet Pimpernel," and "The Phantom of the opera" the novel is written as bloody mystery novel where we see everything from the point of view of the lawyer mr Utterson who tries to find the connection between doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, not before the very last page is it revealed that they are actually the same person, and so the book never ever deals why the Psychological aspect, nor the characters made journey from point a to be, boring boring disappointing book, and it saddens me. Robert Lewis Stevenson who wrote the book also wrote stuff as "treasure island" which is in fact a very good book. thank god for the adaptations, lest have a look at those.




Okay this might come as a surprise to you, as I guess no one is aware of its existence, it haven't even been released on DVD, but my experience regarding this movie is so unique and kind of awesome that it needs telling. "Den Skæbnesvangre opfindelse" or just English titled "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a 22 minute long silent movie from 1910. it's probably the first movie adaptation ever made of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and it's Danish... hey I am Danish!? the fuck O.O
I so marveled when I found out about this, as I said earlier the movie haven't even been released on DVD anywhere, but the raw print still exists in the archives of the Danish movie institutes as a national piece of treasure, and I actually called the instituted and asked if there is somehow I way I could watch it? They were surprisingly happy that I seemed this interested and invited me over for a private screening, which I attended to, and I went to their private cinema in Copenhagen and watched the movie. So I am probably one out of around a hundred people to have even seen this movie. haha awesome story, beat that James Rolf.. the film is okay, it's what you would expect from such an early silent movie and the print was in a really bad shape, it's interesting how they at that early stage managed to shoot a scene where Jekyll and Hyde was in the same room, though actually being played by the same actor, in 1910 guys! I have bloody no idea, but extremely inventive for its time.
the experience was absolutely awesome, and the hunt was on to be the most knowledgeable Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde fan in the world.. though my travels may be far from over.



The American silent hour long "Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" movie from 1920 is probably the silent version most people are familiar with. And it's also put legally up for free on several internet sites including youtube, plus have been released on DVD in numerous times.
Like all the classic silent movies I need to give my usual rant that you need to go and buy a prober version of this with a prober soundtrack if you are ever going to see it, don't see the free youtube version or any free internet versions. just find one with a good well balanced soundtrack, the experience will be completely different.
And with the right soundtrack, it's an awesome movie. So creepy and so dream like, like a nightmare.
There is no other Hyde who looks like this one, he is sort of indescribable, but he looks great, really creepy and scary and I can even trace and evolution throughout the movie that Hyde looks worse and worse every time he appears, he kind of goes bold actually.
One pretty cool transformation scene Jekyll is just laying in his bed sleeping, and a ginourmus spider crawls up in the bed and immerges with him as he transforms into Hyde, and that is probably the best way to describe this Hyde, he looks like a human spider. no really, he does. and very inhuman, which is great. absolutely a movie worth checking out.



The 1931 is differently my favorite version that tries and stay as true as possible to the book. this movie is really incredible awesome.
It's dark, edgy, sexy and does not compromise but carries out it's dark themes perfectly, plus it's entertaining.
Frederich March delivers a superb performance as both Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Jekyll as the young ideal doctor, but not mr goodie perfect as he is rather brash and is put down by his own class who tells he what he can't do, which is really the issue he wants to deal with. And Hyde unleashed which is a bundle of energy, he looks and moves like a freaking monkey, not ever trying to maintain any kind of dignity as he is just raging through the world doing whatever the hell he likes. that is bloody awesome.
As Hyde becomes a growing menace and eventually rapist and downright murderer Jekyll sinks deeper and deeper into hysteric and panic. this movie have no shame but at the same time maintains a sense of class. it is freaking great.
In 1941 the movie was remade with Spencer Tracy in the title role, and I mean that literately as dialogue, sets pieces and plot is exactly the same. only not nearly as daring, sexy. in other words, really boring and not worth checking out when you got the other much cooler version, which even predates it by ten years, sloppy work people, real sloppy.




The British horror company horror productions actually managed to make three different Jekyll and Hyde adaptations, all really unique and stands on their own. one is, "The two Faces of Doctor Jekyll " "Doctor Jekyll and sister Hyde" (no really, it is "sister" he turns into a blood thirsty woman, and no, it's not a comedy either but goes straight for dark horror feast) and "I'Monster"
My personal favorite of does are "I'monster" which I find to be a real good credible Jekyll and Hyde adaptation, in any case Christopher lee in the main character, you can't go all wrong. plus it follows the idea I have of doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde most closely, and have lots of unashamed horror.
"The two faces of Doctor Jekyll " is just such a weird movie, if not for anything else it is absolutely creative written and doesn't quite end as all other adaptations, plus handling the Jekyll and Hyde persona quite different then I have seen other places.
"Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde" is equally weird to watch, mostly because I keep expecting some kind of lame pun regarding Jekyll turning into a woman, but it never ever comes. Hyde just goes on a murderous rampage as in any other Jekyll and Hyde movie as Jekyll realizes how dangerous she is and decides to kill her.
one thing that is plainly obvious in this movie though, that kind of really bothers me regarding female villains is that they are never any fun. Hyde as a character is often really grotesquely funny as he is a rampage and a savage beast all in himself, but women are never allowed to act that way, for some reason women monsters must have beautiful grace and dignity, which was pretty cool the first couple of terms where it was in sharp contrast to their murderous actions, but now it's just boring, I see a woman villain and I now precisely what she is going to give, zero surprises there. and Mrs. Hyde is no different.



"Mary Reilly" from 1996 (get the anagram, Mary Reilley, Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein, anyway). I did not think I would like this movie, after all, it does not take the approach you would usually take for a Jekyll and Hyde movie, but we see everything from the perspective of his servant girl. that's right, Mary Reilley. it is a classic tale of Jekyll and Hyde, only we see all from her point of view as the plot develops. it's a surprisingly good and moody film, it actually manages to deal with the psychological of Jekyll and Hyde as a character, even though we don't spend to much time with them. the growing unsuddenty in the household leaves a mark at the viewer and a sense of claustrophobic helplessness is ever growing as the household is seeing their master slowly growing more and more insane as the manically Hyde appears more and more to terrorize them. The movie does not hide that they are the same person, and it seems like the staff all kind of suspects it, especially Mary, only they don't want to believe it, and so the truth is tearing them slowly down inside of their own mind. a really unique and special movie, but well worth checking out.



the 1997 musical.. I know I know, musicals. I'm sorry, but I just need to.
I have seen this musical three times in three different productions, plus the recorded version with David Hasselhoff.. and they were all tremendlessly different! It's four completely different musicals, even using very different music despite them all kind of being the same score and says its "Frank Wildhorn's" the man have just written so many alternative versions of it, so how the hell am I supposed to talk about this? I don't know, but I tell you something, and that is that I love this musical, again its one of the things I want to really make into a good movie. I own three different soundtracks and I listen to them and I see precisely how I want to make it. The score is great and the song is changing between being brutal and cruel to beautiful that again contrasts the savage murderous things that is going on. Frank Wildhorn the creator of the musical also wrote the Scarlet Pimpernel musical, which I just plainly love. so he is in my mind a very capable and good author and composer. songs like "This is the moment" and "Someone like you" are actually considered huge classics as standalone songs between classical singers, and even if the musical doesn't life on, does songs absolutely will.



in 2007 a six part British television series simply called Jekyll come out, written by Steven Moffat the current head writer of doctor who it's a modern interpretation of the classic stories. actually it only uses the idea of a man turning into a savage beast and uses the tale of Jekyll and Mr. Hyde more as a back grounds story than anything else, actually even the back ground story reminds me more of "Mary Reilley" than anything else related to doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the real story takes place in present day and is more of a psychological thriller with some hardcore action in it to.
Now, they are a lot of divided opinions about this, some people seems to hate it as they find it to complicated. I personally plainly love this!
It was such a treat for me as all modern interpretations of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I have seen so far other than this sucks. and this is just such an exciting hardcore disturbing thriller which is not afraid of really digging down and going deep in the psychological exploration of Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and his two personalities, on the same time as being a adrenalin pumped ride Die heart still. Hyde as a character is a total show stealer and is as disturbing yet fascinating as any Hyde character I have ever seen, despite he doesn't have disturbing make, he simply doesn't need to as he is disturbing enough as it is, you just don't know where you have him, and keeps expecting him to do something truly horrible. he truly is a psychopath or largest degree.




Well, this must be this for new. as I said, new adaptation keeps popping up everywhere, right now I have two whole major adaptations to look forward to, one is set to be released in 2011 with Keanue reeves in the title character. I don't care much for him, I think he have the emotional equeliant of cardboard, but maybe we actually will see him being released in a mad rampage as Hyde! I would love to see that! I don't think I have ever seen Keanue reeves being unleashed in any emotional way, at all. neither in the Matrix movies.
The other one is that freaking Guillermo del Toro is going to make his version of the story.
I love Del Toro as a director, I love his art directing and his heavy emotional style, Pans Labyrinth is easely one of the most disturbing fantasy films I have ever seen. and Guillermo Del Toro and Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde seems like a match made in heaven for me, my heart is singing clear and loudly and I am crying tears of joy.

So, that is probably how it will keep on going with Jekyll and Hyde, lots and lots of crappy adaptation with great shinning lights in between. I would not want it in any other way.

Frankenstein, from then to now.

Ah yeas Frankenstein.
The man who created a monster out of corpses and thereby defied the laws of nature, which he came to pay for pretty dearly.
All though, how dearly depends on the adaptation you're watching.
The original book was written by female author Mary Shelley when she was only 19 years old, on a dark stormy night all the way back in 1818.
I really love this book, and I never get tired of reading it as I always discover something new even though it's not a heavy large book, it's not even half as long as Dracula but have so much more going on for it, and it doesn't drag me down, as old classic novels often does, I really can't believe it was written in 1818, almost two hundred years ago. that is just incredible.
lots of stage plays were based on the book through the 1800 century, and there have even been made more than one silent movie, one of them is legally free to watch on youtube, which is just a very odd little ten minute long movie, if you wanna put ten minutes aside go ahead, but its really campy old, low in production and just all around weird.





the 1931 Frankenstein movie with Boris Karloff is probably the one most people are thinking about when talking Frankenstein, even though few people have seen it. This movie just created all the mental imprints we have. the look of the lab with all the sparkly light thingies all around, the castle on a hill with lighting in the back ground, the graveyard which just looks so bare, the hunchbacked assistant, the creator yelling "It's alive", villagers charging the castle with hay forks and touches, and of cause the look of the monster.
All of these things is in the movie. Now its important to remember, non of this stuff had ever appeared in a movie before this, this movie doesn't use old clichés. it created them from scratch. And the movie is well checking out for any horror fan of any horror genre, because this is the movie where it all really began. its a cool movie.



The sequel "Bride of Frankenstein" from 1935 is a stunning experience. it doesn't have so many things in it that would eventually become clichés, but it is actually a better movie.
It is just so beautiful, well acted and preformed, well written and all that stuff. it's really a sequel worth its title and time, taking what the first movie brought and taking it a step further, just as any sequel in reality should. one cliché this movie created however was the blind old man with the violin, and the scenes he is in is just so filled with emotion that it's unbelievable, you wouldn't quite believe it, but that's how it is. a really cool and beautiful movie, and this is my personally favourite movie of all the universal classics.

five other sequels have been made, but they are not nearly as good nor influential as these two first movies, and is really only worth checking out for hardcore fans.




In 1957 the british horror company Hammer Productions made their first major horror, which was Frankenstein. through time there were made 7 Hammer Frankenstein films all in all, all with Peter Cushing as Viktor Frankenstein.

These movies are awesome, instead of having the same monster appear again and again like in the universals movies, Frankenstein was the one to reaccure, each time with a growing insanity as his obsession of creating a monster that works grows which each movie, really making Peter Cushings performance the highlight of each movie and the entire film series, non of the monsters have ever hardly anything to do. they are kind of camped and not always visually stunning, but the horror and the mood are always very much present which is what makes these movies so great.





in 1974, Parody maker Mel Brooks made his master piece in both comedy and spoof movies. "Young Frankenstein" this movie is both beautiful to look at, have class, is daring and vulgar and is funny as hell. Both Gene Wilder as Frankenstein and Marty Feldman as Igor, both comedians known for plenty of other stuff delivers the performance of their life, and the performance fans would continued widely claim to be the best they ever gave.

The movie is a love letter to the old universal Frankenstein movies of the 30's as the style is completely replicated and the movie shows nothing but respect towards its origins. its well worth checking out.




in 1990 Tim Burton made the movie "Edward Scissor hands" which is quite a different kind of Frankenstein tale, where the maker is not involved in other but few flash backs scenes, though the themes is very much the same themes as is often used regarding the monster in the classic Frankenstein movies.

I really love this movie, it's one of the movies out of my childhood, and I just love everything about it. It really have an all around fairy tale fell about it, and its just so cute and funny though at the same time developing a serious dark undertone towards the end.

Personally, I believe this movie paints what Tim Burton was all about in his pride, and sadly he have kind of forgotten with his last few movies, though this glimpse of the past is well worth checking into. one thing is for sure, even November as the first snow falls outside of my window, this movie will be popped into my DVD machine.



In 1994 Kenneth Bragath made his version of the Frankenstein "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and put himself in the main role as Frankenstein. Already as production had hardly started he claimed this to be the definitive version of Frankenstein.
sigh... I can't stand film makers that have the arrogance to call their version of something "The definitive" especially with something with such a big legacy, as pr usual I havn't hardly touched all that that have been going on in this franchise, it's legacy is just huge.

Is it definitive then? well, its a lot more faithful to the original novel than any of the above mentioned films, but that doesn't make it entirely faithful, and I just don't find it that exciting either. It's a bit to pretentious and a bit to bland to me and really trips over itself in the story telling and becomes muddled as it tries to much, all though it really tries, and of cause over ambitious is always better than under ambitious, I just don't fancy this movie that much.
If you want to see a version that rocks that is incredible faithful to the novel watch the two parter television movie with John Huston as the monster from 2006, it's awesome! and unbelievable faithful to the original novel.




And this year 2010 we had "Splice"
I did not exspect to get a Frankenstein film delivered, but that is kind of what it is.. well of for nothing else than.. awesome to go and see a Frankenstien film in cinema! though... really disgusting and disturbing Frankenstein... YUK!
though, how often do I say yuk of a recent horror film? not to often I have to admit, so yeah, applaud.

It really is Frankenstein, the main characters are even called "Clive and Elsa" which is obviously named after Colin Clive, who played Viktor Frankenstein in the 1931 movie, and Elsa Lanchester who played the bride in the 1935 sequel. awesome!


now this isn't a perfect film, but for a horror fan who likes campy, cheap shock evil dead effect horror over things that doesn't even try an be all smart with itself. its a treat, and I throughout enjoyed it. despite a couple of "huh" moments, I was never bored and that counts a lot for me in recent horrors as most horrors bores me to dead.

well, awesome. I went to cinema and expected a new kind of boring Matrix but got a kind of fun Frankenstein, this franchise is just to good to ever really die.

Dracula, from then to now.

Listen to them, Children of the night

What music they make.

Well this ought to capture at least some peoples attention, who does not like Dracula???
Horror fans, old grandpas and young teenage girls who apparently is so thirsty for some vampire goodiness that they succumb to the all hated, and to be frank, all dreadful Twilight

I love Dracula, and the two of us goes back a long time. Though he would not be my classic monster obsession number one, that honour goes to a completely other individual... or erhmm.. individuals I guess... maybe... we will talk about that later.

So, Dracula was originally a novel written by author Bram Stocker all the way back in 1897, unlike other books that have given life to pop culture figures I have talked about, Phantom of the opera, The Scarlet Pimpernel and so on. this book does not disappoint and is actually a good exiting read, despite its old age. its a creepy stalker horror book where the danger is everywhere and the characters must always fear for loosing their sanity as that is exactly what is happening for other people around them. cool.

okay, this thing have a lot, and I mean a lot of adaptations, I have seen a lot through my young life, and thus is naturally not going to cover all of them, just them I find the best or most important. Or have played a part through my personal life.. hey! my blog, my choices.




One of the most known and influential early versions of this movie is the 1922 German exspretionalistic silent "Nosferatu"
This movie is great, its creepy and good looking and even today is pretty scary. if you have the right copy. Like the old silent Phantom of the opera, there are several copies of this on the marked, and if your going to watch it, make sure you get a copy with a good soundtrack, not the free versions around the internet, a copy with a good soundtrack, the viewing experience will be totally different.
The movie follows the book pretty faithful, and is the closets to have the same mood as the book, also its the Dracula character closets to him in the book as he is not a sexy vampire, but just plain ugly and creepy. what a delight.




The Dracula mental imprint I guess everyone have would be the Bella Lugosi black and white movie from 1931, simply called Dracula.
Its a fun movie to sit through, all though it probably wont blow your mind away its still pretty cool to watch this early stuff that created today's clichés, and with few effects it creates its creepy atmosphere with the characters and dialogue, especially all the scenes with Renfield is nuts and creepy. Dracula himself comes off as a creepy eccentric dude, and kind of demands the screen when he is in the room, he is a focus stealer. And the movie is worth checking out, if not for anything else, then its cultural influence on all Draculas and Vampires to come, and it's James Rolf's favourite old universal horror picture :D

The movie had several sequels, but does are only worth checking out for people who are either great Dracula fans, or great fans of the old monster movies. Bella Lugosi isn't even in any of them.




In 1958 Hammer productions made their first Dracula movie with Christopher Lee as Dracula and Peter Cushing as Doctor Van Hellsing.
The movie had 7 sequels by the Hammer company, all with Christopher lee back, 8 sequels if you count "The Legend of the 7 golden vampires" which doesn't have Lee back as Dracula, but instead Cushing as Van Hellsing.
Now, changes are they either you would watch all of these movies or non of them, so I am just going to talk about them as a whole. these movies are great fun, its really campy B movies when it works, and that is how I personally like it. Its not afraid of using lots of a blood and gore and other cheap scary effects, and on the same time maintain the creepy atmosphere of a person telling a horror story in the middle of a thunder filled dark night. Differently worth checking out, though some of the movies kind of fall flat with to little Dracula and to little gore, others thankfully hit it spot on.




In 1979 two really awesome versions of Dracula was released.
The first one was just plain oll "Dracula" with Frank Langella in the title character.
This movie is really overlooked as it is really awesome. its dead sexy, creepy and disturbing a really exiting tale of Dracula and a girls obsession with him, it really paints to picture of a romance I can deal with when regarding Dracula, and Frank Langella is a sexy bastard, he really knows how to handle that cape as well. visually stunning, horror is in order and even romance for the ladies. what more could you ask. Its differently one of my favourite Dracula movies.



The German "Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht" is at least, if not more an overlooked movie.
God dammit is this movie creepy and scary, it creeps the hell out of me.
Its more a remake of the old silent Nosferatu movie than anything else, and it is just as creepy, if not creepier. the guy playing the Nosferatu looks just as creepy and scarring as the one in the silent movie, and the movie is really just plain grotesque, there is nothing romantic about this, nor really campy over the top, just really scary. And it's fully on purpose that its so uncomfortable creepy to watch, yet it's so hypnotic that you can't really look away, I don't think I have seen another movie quite like it. really worth checking out.





In 1992, Francis Ford Corpella directed "Bram Stokers Dracula"
For me, this is to much an adventure romance, and to little a dracula horror. I know a lot of people who really lovea it, I just don't. It seems a bit to bland and over romanticised for my liking, and to little a dracula movie. Anyhow, if I want monster heartfelt drenching romance I go see a Phantom of the opera movie. Gary Oldman does a fine job as Dracula I guess. Keanu Reeves is his own wooden self as Jonathan Harker, this movie just doesn't say me that much to me.
And it's just such a shame that the title is "Bram Stokers Dracula" when it's the version the least faithful to the novel of all the above mentioned. No kidding. its like going to cinema expecting "Dracula" but getting "Tristan and Isolde" instead. both are fine stories, I just wanted Dracula and not the romantic sweety pie story of the ages.


In 1995 Mel Brooks made the parody "Dracula Dead and loving it" parodying all the classic Dracula movies. people seems to really hate this movie, I think its okay. The thing just is, that it kind of disappoints, I can imagine when people saw it the first time they were expecting another "Young Frankenstein" which is not only a brilliant spoof, but also maintains a sense of class and style, plus obvious love for the franchise its based on.
This spoof is just that, a spoof, and its fine, I know people complain its vulgar and gross, but so are all the classic Mel Brooks films, even "Young Frankenstein" which is filled with vulgar jokes. And I rather take this movie any day than another "Scary movie" though should I pick any Dracula movie... There are to many other Dracula movies doing a far better job, to me even want to watch this over and over.



In 2000 there was made "Dracula 2000" which is basically Dracula in a modern setting as the movie takes place in the same year as it had release date.
What can I say? its a fun bloody movie, made with love of its origins and that's that.
Its not overwhelming, its not movie altering but its great fun. and that in itself is kind of great.



And that's that. well Dracula have appeared in other movies since then in such things as "The league of Extraordinary gentlemen" which everyone already knows is a shitty movie, and "Van Hellsing" which everybody says is a shitty movie, but I find to be quite entertaining really, come on what did you expect of a monster mash up? it pretty much delivers everything I would personally expect.

And of cause its only a matter of time before yet another blockbuster movie will be made about the dude, plus he keeps popping up everywhere! children's cartoons, televisions serials, spoof and serious movies, Commercial for breakfast serial, comic books. he is everywhere, probably the most well known character in the world. and that is kind of awesome.