Doctor Jekyll

[F]or as much as "Doctor Jekyll" rides high on its compelling central performance (and the gender politics therein), the film that surrounds that star turn can't quite hide (or Hyde?) its weightlessness.

Part throwback, part update and a little bit creaky, it’s all-in-all an excellent showcase of Izzard’s wonderful talents.

Though Stephenson finds a more-than-game collaborator in Izzard as both the good and evil doctor, “Doctor Jekyll” is meandering and empty, an update with neither enough loyalty to its source material or imagination to make its departures meaningful.

There’s nowhere near enough horror, threat, or intrigue to last the course.

It’s an unforgivably lazy picture, a film that feels as though it was written in crayon and edited with an axe.

The screenplay from the novice writer Dan Kelly-Mulhern is deeply muddled, plodding between Rob’s old criminal buddies, a robbery plan, a leukaemia-afflicted baby and confused messaging about what is “wrong” with Nina.

This schlocky horror breathes a bit of fresh air into Stevenson’s original.

I was hoping it would have an engaging new take on the popular narrative, what with a trans woman in the lead. It did not.

A meandering, dull adaptation that even Izzard's delightful performance can't salvage.

Despite strong performances, writer Dan Kelly-Mulhern doesn't do anything with the material, which results in a film that's just kinda boring. You're better off revisiting 1971's Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde. A soft recommend just for Izzard.