Mary Reilly | 
| Director: Stephen Frears
Actors: Julia Roberts, John Malkovich, George Cole, Michael Gambon, Kathy Staff
Studio: Sony Pictures
Category: DVD
List Price: $9.95
Buy Used: $0.97
You Save: $8.98 (90%)
New (61) Used (60) Collectible (1) from $0.97
Rating:  59 reviews
Sales Rank: 48034
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dvd, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language), Portuguese (Original Language)
Rating: R (Restricted)
Region: 1
Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1
Number Of Discs: 1
Running Time: 108 Minutes
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.3 x 0.6
MPN: COLD11052D
ISBN: 0767848845
UPC: 043396110526
EAN: 9780767848848
ASIN: B00004W4UB
Theatrical Release Date: February 23, 1996
Release Date: September 12, 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
AN INNOCENT IRISH HOUSEMAID FINDS HERSELF ENMESHED IN A LOVE TRIANGLE BETWEEN HER KINDLY EMPLOYER, DR. JEKYLL, AND HIS BRUTAL ALTER-EGO, MR. HYDE. SPECIAL FEATURES: LANGUAGES: ENGLISH, FRENCH, SPANISH, AND PORTUGUESE. SUBTITLES IN ENGLISH, FRENCH, SPANISH, PORTUGUESE, CHINES, KOREAN AND THAI, AND MUCH MORE.
Amazon.com essential video
Stephen Frears reunites with the production talents who made the tempting Dangerous Liaisons for this new look at the infamous Dr. Jekyll (a deft John Malkovich). Instead of being in the laboratory where the good doctor unlocks his evil twin, we stay in the mansion overlooking the lab. An inquisitive, proper maid, Mary Reilly (Julia Roberts) slowly becomes Dr. Jekyll's confidant. Rather than a horror story, the film is a spooky mystery that keeps us in the dark, and what a wonderful dark Frears and his designers have fashioned. Roberts carries the movie, digging deep for her best dramatic work to date. Though some may wish she'd show more passion, she holds her emotions appropriately in check. The movie faced considerable, well-documented troubles, including the reshooting of several scenes months after the initial production. This probably affected the finale, which has little impact and nearly ruins a good thing. --Doug Thomas
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 54 more reviews...
Nothing Wrong With A Little Subtly March 18, 2009
Craig Connell (Lockport, NY USA)
I am glad to see other reviewers praising this "underrated" film. I figured I was the only person who actually liked it, but I guess not. All the national critics sure hated this low-key retelling of Jekyll and Hyde. Despite critics' comments to contrary, I found this an intelligent adaptation of the famous story.
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.
People don't care for subtly in films anymore. They want in-your-face smash-ups, gore, violent conflicts....and a lot of it. This movie is extremely low-key.
I have to admit 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. Yet, for some odd reason, despite the above paragraph, I recommend the film to people who enjoy slower films and slow suspense, even if they have to suspend a little believability. I thought it was oddly fascinating.
 Mystery, Suspense... February 15, 2009
Esperanza Reynolds (Miami Lakes, Florida)
Mary Reiley, masterfully played by Julia Roberts and Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde brilliantly performed by John Malkovich is a suspenseful recreation of the split personality of a man who has an inner evil twin who takes the lives of others as he experiences rage and the desire to control.
If you know the background of the original work by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, you know that it is about split personalities, surfacing the fact that within each of us there is the possibility of good and evil and that every human being, if all virtue is removed [kindness, compassion, love, hope, charity, faith] is capable of committing atrocities and go back to animal instincts.
The duality we find in ourselves, if not dealt with in an effort to understand our faults, may create personalities that project evil onto others, surfacing anger, rage, depression and lack of self esteem. Humans that do not deal with their inner demons end displaying an outward respectability that is nothing but social hypocrisy that masks a tendency for inner sins, whether these be lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy or pride.
The movie is set in London and the plot for the most part, takes place in the mansion, with an intuitive and inquisitive Mary Reiley providing her interpretation of the conflict experienced by Dr. Jekyll. Mary Reiley suffered greatly as a child in the hands of an abusive father and as such, she understands the evil within others and how harmful it was to her, therefore, how harmful it is to those that Mr. Hyde encounters during the night.
The plot scenes are set in dark places, Mary Reiley is asked to visit houses of ill repute, where Glenn Close plays the part of the "madam" who will permit Dr. Jekyll to engage in all sorts of evil acts as long as he pays a good price.
We get the feeling that Mary Reiley ends loving her kind employer, the first man to ever protect and confide in her, and that through this love and acceptance of his good and evil, she inspires the evil side to put an end to all suffering. If you like mystery, suspense, horror and dark romance, this is a movie for you! While not our favorite type movie, we were thrilled by the performances. Don't miss it!
 Not-so Pretty Woman December 18, 2008
Charles M. Strnad (Tulsa, OK)
I saw this movie in the theatres when it first came out in 1996, and have to admit that at the time, it didn't leave much of an impression. I'm a reader of classic literature, and was familiar enough with Robert Louis Stevenson's original masterpiece, though I have never read the modern adaptation by Valerie Martin, on which this movie is largely based. I'm not one of the purists who gets bent out of shape if a movie deviates all that much from a written source, provided the source is fictional, and the movie well-done in it's own right. I actually appreciated the twist of telling the classic Jeckyll-Hyde story from the viewpoint of a woman, as this was particularly absent in Stevenson's original work.
I picked up a copy of the DVD the other day (not sure why), and after watching this little-known, atmospheric movie again the other night, have decided that it's better the second time around. Maybe that's the better way to judge most movies after all: some clearly blow you away with the first viewing, but many films like that, when viewed again after the distance of many years, lose their luster- "Mary Reilly" is the other way around for me. Watching it again after 12 years, I appreciated many aspects of the movie that just slipped by me the first time.
For one, while much has been made of the "miscasting" of Julia Roberts, and her on-again, off-again Irish accent in this film, I think it's actually one of her better acting performances. I'm not a fan of Robert's, mainly because the bulk of her movies involve precious little serious acting: most of the time she is just asked to look pretty. "Mary Reilly" (where she is a house servant to the troubled Dr. Jeckyll- John Malkovich- in 1885 London) is the only movie of hers I have seen where her body is not primarily on display. Wearing period attire throughout the film, and with generally no makeup to embellish her face (which actually looks somewhat scarred and even haggard in many scenes), she manages to convey Mary's conflicting emotions very well.....she clearly has a fondness for Dr. Jeckyll, and conveys both fear and paradoxical attraction to the malevolent Hyde without being given all that much to say. Some real acting going on here, and while some just call this miscasting, I appreciated a side of this actress that I've not seen on display before. Her 50:50 success with the Irish accent didn't bother me as much as it apparently did for many other reviewers: at least she tried. Odd that no one gets on Malkovich (a superb actor, particularly in menacing roles like Hyde) for NEVER attempting the same. What bothered me more about Malkovich's character was not the lack of any attempt to make Hyde physically much different from Jeckyll (which many thought was hilariously thin), but the fact that Hyde's voice was NO different than Jeckyll's, other than being given more disturbing things to say. In any event, kudos to Julia Roberts for going "outside-the-box" in this role. Perhaps her role in "Michael Collins" came close to this, with a similarly subdued performance, including the accent.
The main theme of the movie is of course well-known to fans of Stevenson's work, and my only complaint here is I wish the screenwriters had gone a little deeper with Malkovich's character, and given him a few more lines and a little more screen time by himself, to explore the timeless theme of good and evil within the heart of every man. A little less time dwelling on Julia Roberts face, and a little more with glimpses into Jeckyll's torment would have worked better.
The costumes and sets to recreate Victorian London were well-done, though the squalor of the back streets and the forboding atmospheric fog were only given a small role in the film- and at times the interior lighting effects were at odds with the candle-light era: a bit too bright at times, when darkness, fog, and obscurity would not only have been more realistic, but more effective.
The musical score, which totally escaped my attention the first time I saw this film, adds nicely to the tension leading up to Mary's discovery of Jeckyll's secret. It's an understated soundtrack, so you won't find yourself humming bars from it months later- but it clearly adds to the atmosphere of the film, and never detracts from a scene.
The pacing of the movie is deliberately slow, and the violence brief, never gratuitous, and largely implied. But, at 108 minutes, I never felt the movie dragged unnecessarily. Just about right.
I give "Mary Reilly" 3 stars overall. My measure of a movie's worth is whether I would watch it more than once, and whether it holds it's entertainment value after a number of years. In this respect, "Mary Reilly" comfortably measures up. Not a classic, but worth viewing.
I'll take it over "Pretty Woman" anyday. Well, if I'm in the mood, anyway.....
Mary Reilly July 16, 2008
Joyce E. Hatcher
This is a well acted and directed alternative version of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde classic tale. It does have some graphic scenes which would make it unsuitable for younger children. It is one of John Malkovich's best acting as the characters that he portrays are believable.
Nice Use Of Alternate History Within A Work Of Fiction February 29, 2008
Penny Dreadful (Under Your Skin)
Re-telling a classic tale from a new perspective, usually courtesy of a relatively minor character from the original work, is an old and in some cases dubious literary tradition. It has been undertaken with deliciously successful results in, say, The Return of Moriarty, by John Gardner, or has fallen shamefully flat: Donald McCaig's recent Rhett Butler's People comes to mind.
The 1996 film Mary Reilly is the lukewarm but not charmless on-screen adaptation of the superior 1990 "alternate history" novel by the acclaimed Valerie Martin, who in penning her tale drew on Robert Louis Stevenson's magnum opus, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. In the film as in the novel, Mary Reilly, an Irish maidservant far from home and melancholy, lately given work in the household of one Dr Henry Jekyll, a London gentleman and medical researcher in the year 1885, forms a friendship of sorts with her dual-natured employer, and stands in as a background figure in the events described to greater effect in the classic Robert Louis Stevenson novel Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.
Inexplicable mega-star Julia Roberts is passable here and courageously attempts an Irish accent with moderate success--hey, I can't do one well, either, Julia, and trust me, I've tried---while John Malkovich, not quite the Dr. Jekyll the original author described, is still enjoyably creepy in this role. Though the murders in this movie are largely implied and committed off-screen, there's a compensatory scene in which a tub full of fresh-caught eels meet their maker in the Jekyll kitchen and that should churn even the toughest stomachs.
Fans of the Stevenson novel tend to either love this second take on the old tale or else recoil at the ballsy blasphemy of what Martin and film maker Christopher Hampton (Atonement) did. For those who loved the movie, I say please read the much-better novel. And for those fans of Stevenson's original who sneered at the movie, I'd note here that Valerie Martin's book is a much more a case of loving tribute to the nineteenth-century masterpiece than Hampton's motion picture.
|
|
|
