Mary Reilly (1996)
2/10
Um, no... No very much
24 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
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.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed