9:02 "Almost like Jekyll _knew_ it was gonna turn out this way instead of ridding himself of evil." That's...actually pretty close to how it was in the original story, if I recall correctly. Jekyll didn't create his formula for some noble cause of ridding humanity of evil; he did it so that he could have a way to act out his darker impulses without fear of repercussion or guilt. He only started regretting it when the transformations got out of his control.
16:13 19th century fact -- people left cards when they were visiting their friends, and the friends were not home. It was to indicate "hi, I stopped by", and was a fail safe for the servant's memory.
This isn't nearly accurate! They forgot the infinite-range bombs and the birds that take dumps on Jekyll, and the cane isn't supposed to kill anything except bees!
Plus it wasn't so much a split-personality as it was Jekyll letting loose and putting all the blame on Hyde. He treated it like another person, but it was more disassociate as opposed to an actual separate personality.
@@Igarappappa Does create a good relatable issue on the fact we all live on a fragile piece of glass called Reputation, and the thinner it is as you become a better and better being to the point one mistake could crash down Hence why Jekyll created that potion so as long as he is Hyde with an already broken reputation, he can still patch his.....but they were patched with those cheap bandages you get at a walmart
i just realized she's not telling them a story like hansel and gretel or something, this is something real that actually happened to her. she decided to just randomly tell some kids she's babysitting about some horrific traumatic string of murders she actually experienced firsthand, wtf!? who does that!? lmao!
Andy Semple I'm waiting for Friday the 13th the animated musical with a scene interrupting bear, a random idiot running through a field, and a comic-relief cat.
In the original story, Mr. Hyde's body count was WAY lower. You would think the cartoon version would lighten things up a bit, not turn the darkness up to 11.
I can't believe people are actually arguing that Phelous should've read the book before watching this movie in order to appreciate it better and explain some of the plot holes. Do you expect the children this movie was _meant for_ to have read the book beforehand as well??
None of the adaptations follow the book anyway. If someone made a completely faithful adaptation of the book, only with the names changed around, everyone would think it was an original story. I'm dead serious.
The one thing I will say for this adaptation is that it's a little closer to the jeckyl/hyde relationship of the original story, when most try to super simplify it as "split personality" when it's a bit more complicated than just that
Yeah, he was described as extremely off-putting but more because of his eyes and the general repulsiveness that a depraved human can evoke in others, but nothing like Frankenstein's mosnter or Dracula, for sure...
Kasumi Ryona Gaming and he was also short, as in dwarfish, with his arms and legs proportional to each other, so he’s basically the Victorian version of the hulk minus the green.
@@KasumiRINA Even Frankenstein's monster wasn't hideous in the traditional sense, looking at him just tripped people's mental "THIS SHOULD NOT EXIST" alarms
"Well you see kids, I kept Dr Jekyl's old notes...and you know, I felt tonight would be a good night to...to...TEST IT AND RAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!" *cue nightmaare fuel as Nanny starts shredding her clothing, her eyes go yellow, and a large shadow plays over the bed*
I actually HAVE laughed at "A Clockwork Orange" and I was really surprised that people were horribly disturbed by the "Singin' in the Rain" scene because I thought it was like... a dark comedy moment.
Apparently I'm more Australian than American because I laughed at all of that, too... My Father and I often freak people out by laughing at the most horrible things. 🤣😂🤣
@@mastermarkus5307 Wait... The drooves were supposed to be scary? Also some have claimed the film is meant to take place in the future in a post-apocalypse, but like, nothing futuristic happens nor is there any indication that any kind of End of the World has happened... I like a lot of the imagery from it, but as a movie.. it just makes no sense, especially since it's missing an ending.
So, according to the title at the beginning, 20 years passed between the Jekyll/Hyde incident and the maid telling it to her grandchildren. But she's clearly an old lady there with gray hair. Yet she looked young during her time with Jekyll. Holy time warp Batman!
A little piece of 19th century trivia. At 16:11 , the “ calling card” isn’t so that Jekyll actually calls him. In the 19th century, it was standard etiquette that people would regularly go and visit their friends homes to catch up with them and enquire on their well-being.That practice was called “calling”. If your friends weren’t at home, you’d give their servants or family members your “calling card” so that your friends could know that you came to visit them. When telephones became more standard in every home, people started “phone calling”, so they didn’t necessarily have to go see their friends in person to catch up and chat. And, slowly, voicemail replaced calling cards. So when the guy at 16:11 leaves his calling card to Hyde, it’s today’s equivalent of leaving a voicemail saying “We need to talk”.
@@barktrap Well, I can't exactly blame people for forgetting, considering most adaptations omit Utterson (most likely since, once the mystery aspect is removed, his character becomes kind of superfluous)
Mr. Porteous PLEASE consider a career in voice acting, at least part time! Your reviews are hilarious, but your voice acting is the highlight! Or at least one of the highlights. UPDATE: I've discovered "Lloyd." So I'll rephrase this post: do voice acting more often!
19th century: it was either stress or something else. also she's not 60 XD they probblly thought 40 was ancient back then Also you can have grey hair and NOT be 60 😂
Lawyer dude: "He totally left me all his money. It's all there in this will he made." Sir Butler: "May I see?" Lawyer dude: "No, you may not." Sir Butler: "Fair enough. We'll send you the money shortly."
I mean, that actually really is what happens. One of the running subplots in the book is Jekyll, who had previously stated his intent to leave a portion of his fortune to Ottisen, suddenly asking him to draw up a new will leaving it all to Hyde instead. This turned out to have been a fail-safe, in case Jekyll was no longer able to keep up the facade; he'd falsify his own murder and live the remainder of his life pretending to be Hyde while still able to enjoy his fortune. In the end he recants this will and restores Ottisen's portion.
Uh, there already IS an animated adaptation of "The Phantom of the Opera". In fact, there might be two, and I remember hearing about one that's allegedly still in production.
Heck, yeah! 👍 Though you should check out Jekyll & Hyde in animated form in "The Pagemaster". ^_^ It's an underappreciated animated classic, & Leonard Nimoy does a FANTASTIC job as J&H! ❤
I always though someone should've done the classic monster's animated version, including Dracula, Frankenstein and this one, but in a high quality high budget movie like Dreamwork's
What's especially weird about this is that Hyde only officially killed one person in the book, and that was what actually got him in huge trouble and made Jekyll stop taking the potion. In the animated movie here, murder is the first thing he does, and keeps doing. (And of course, Hyde was just a disguise for Jekyll to indulge his base desires, they were never two separate personalities in the book)
@@Readasaur 👍 I noticed a lot of people here in the comments keep describing it as split personality making me MORE confused 😅 I haven’t read the book but I do want to look into the dynamic of the tale more
@@gracekim1998 It's been years since I read the book, but it was essentially an allegory for addiction. It starts out as a way for Jekyll to cut loose without significant repercussions, but spirals out of control as he finds himself needing more and more to have the same effect. He finds himself succumbing to "transformations" during the day when he needs to fulfill obligations, which begins to negatively impact his life. By this point, he has also been engaging in a lot of bad behaviour, which he blames Hyde for rather than taking ownership of his actions. For him, creating the persona of Hyde was easier than admitting that he, a well-respected doctor, had fallen to the moral failing of addiction. The people around him supported this, since a doctor surely couldn't be an addict. Once he runs out of the chemical he had been using, he tries to order a new batch, only to discover the new stuff doesn't work for him at all. His initial batch was somehow impure, and he doesn't know what it was laced with. This, in addition to having killed someone while intoxicated, places him in a very dark place. The story ends with his death, as his friends and the police find "Mr. Hyde." He leaves them a note explaining what had happened to him. It's a bit of a downer ending, but it made a significant impact on the perception of addiction at the time. It was one of the driving forces behind the cultural shift in seeing it as an illness rather than a moral failing. Strangely enough, the book never clearly calls it addiction. It's all in the subtext.
I gotta say, this story isn't at all accurate to the book. Despite being the titular character, Jekyll isn't the main focus. Instead, it's the lawer, Mr. Utterson, who is the focus as he tries to solve the mystery that seems to surround Mr. Hyde. Most people seem to think of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as a horror story, when it seems like Robert Louis Stevenson wrote it more like a murder mystery.
It's on my top 5 books. I love it. I get really pissed off because I've never seen any film that is even close to the book. For example when reading the book the Utterson (and the reader) think Hyde is Jekylls illegitimate son and is blackmailing him. Also Hyde is smaller and younger. And of course, there's the fact that there is something powerful in being Hyde, because Jekyll is a good man who made a mistake.
If they wanted Dr. Jekyll to have a love interest, they should have used the maid. It would have been more meaningful than him looking at a random woman in the park.
+ecojosh1 As a fan of the original story, it annoys me to no end that every adaptation feels the need to have a love interest for Dr. Jekyll. Same thing for The Island of Doctor Moreau. I don't know why people in the media (Hollywood especially) love to throw in love interests where they don't belong.
Master Markus And like in Patch Adams... Seriously why this movie needed a heartbroken love story that didn't even match the real events baffles me, but what baffles even more is that people wants those vain love stories to happen in films that even needed them to begin with!
@BilboKoira I'm not opposed to making him gay, but how would that be more reasonable exactly? A love interest is a love interest, regardless of their gender...
@tultsi93Finnish almost all characters in the book are male, Doctor Jekyll is described as handsome and imposing, and there are definitely too much strong feelings between men for the story to be completely straight. @Yawning Lion original story has zero heterosexual romance but clearly a total "male friendship romance" overload.
+CoLeMaWeSoMe Well, we all live in such a world were things get dumbed down. I wonder how Hamlet or King Lear would be transformed into a cartoon, or even a Kid's Special.
I loved the book. Dr. Jekyll was a seemingly perfect person but he secretly wanted to do evil things so he created the potion, thinking that he could remain in control of his immorality but Mr.Hyde slowly starts trying to take over.
God, Phelous you really are an underrated reviewer. I know some people don't like your style but I love it. Your style is unique and you deserve a couple hundred thousand more subscribers. Also, HENRY OH MY GOD!!!
lol why the hell is dude so mad @ 4:56 like really? what the hell is wrong with him? and I love the running joke with him Phelous this is one of my favorite reviews of yours. I love this one the first beauty and the beast, all the bootleg zones. when you talked about the real ghostbusters and how and why they changed it to the awful version and of course the stupid 80s TMNT moments.you are really a funny and talented man, keep up the great work, you are truly bring joy to people's lives.
IIRC the character in question is somewhat of an intellectual rival to Jekyll, and is both instinctively opposing him because he wants to one-up Jekyll, and is also annoyed that his "rival" is suddenly spouting such a patently unscientific hypothesis based on abstract concepts like "good" and "evil".
Not before the animated films based on the lives of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer. The one I can't wait for is the animated tale of Earl Bradley and use it as a story of conscious to warn kids about sick child molesters and killers in the world.
I've read the book, love the story, and I'll say it right now, this movie actually does touch upon most of the important plot points from the book. HOWEVER, it does so in the worst, most haphazardly way humanly possible! The result is a butchered mess! Go read the book, it's not very long.
Can you imagine if the maid told the children how the story actually ended? "And then out of pure hopelessness and pain, Dr. Jekyll committed suicide. The end. Well, goodnight kids!"
I'm always disappointed none of these film versions ever adapt the actual book. Like the fact they always try and pretend that Jekyll is a good guy who's manipulated by Hyde in some way. But in the book Jekyll claims to be good yes. But he also freely admits that he feels constricted by his reputation as an upstanding citizen. He takes the potion intentionally in order to live out a life doing what he always wanted to do with no consequences. The horror at the end where he starts changing without the potion isn't because he's trying to redeem himself, it's because if he gets stuck as Hyde he could be caught and forced to actually pay for his crimes. Anyway, good video! Despite my Jekyll/Hyde themed hang ups.
A bit like how I feel regarding adaptations of Barrie's Peter Pan. Peter isn't meant to be a character that changes, but in almost every adaptation, they have to have him learn something.
As to the Nanny's story I think she knows of the things she hasn't seen because Jekyll wrote it in his journal which was probably given away or read by the lawyer guy. Still this is a bizzare movie and not exactly a faithful adaptation as in the book it was never clear what Hyde did. It was Victorian Era and it would have been considered scandalous for a man of his position to go to prostitutes or to gamble, because while men weren't as retrained as women there still were strict social norms. Anyway even if he did murder people this is an awkward adaptation of it and as you said it does make it even worse...
The "Oh, my God!" scene from the book was when it's revealed to the reader that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person and not only that, but it's also when supernatural elements are introduced in the story, so Lynyon's reaction was meant to also be the reader's reaction. It's from there that we get the whole story from Jekyll's perspective and the mystery blanks are filled in.
This actually seems like decent animation, I'm getting a lot of Chuck Jones vibes from the style - wouldn't be shocked if he had something to do with this considering his Jungle Book adaptations were a little dark as well XD But good god at those unfittingly comical death scenes... lol Also, I swear I recognize Dr. Jekyll's voice from somewhere, he almost sounds like one of the rabbits from Watership Down (specifically Hazel)
The book wasn't actually about a split personality though, Mr. Hyde was more an elaborate (uninhibited) mask for Dr. Jekyll to use in order to satisfy his darker based urges that he as Dr. Jekyll, an upstanding pillar of the community, couldn't act on. Also the book was intended for at least older children which is why the book shied away from the blood and gore of a typical horror story.
@@gracekim1998 I think Hollywood has provided more than enough adult targeted audience films for the retelling of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The story is in the public domain so maybe there is someone who decided to write an adult take on the book as well. I was never curious enough to look any up though cuz I thought the original tale was perfect.
@@SwiftNimblefoot nope, that's why (despite the dark themes and adult main cast of characters) there are no profanities, gore, or sexual overtones in this horror mystery novel cuz the author intended for (older) children to be able to read the story
While this may be the only animated adaptation, I know of at least two cartoons that did parodies of it...one of which, surprisingly enough, was VeggieTales. (That was actually what first introduced me to the story xD)
Seriously, I appreciate how Burbank wasn't afraid to capture the darker moments of the book into a 50 minute animated film that aired on TV. I'm legitimately, unironically waiting for them to do an adaptation of John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", THAT'S how much I love them!
Doing this review when you did was absolutely brilliant and clearly set your career trajectory from that point on. I have watched this video a hundred times, usually drifting off to sleep as I do. 12 years on and I never get tired of your content.
Showing murder , lightening it with comedic animation techniques , no romance ...... i might just be interested in more Australian movies for kids . this sounds amazing
Jekyl and Hyde was never a split personality, it was more two sides of the same person, or, (as a bit of a tortured example) like you can meet the same person online and in real life and find they act completely differently. Hyde is just Jekyl minus his inhibitions, doing all the fun stuff that Jekyl himself would be ashamed of because Victorian's (am I right?lol)
I guess the "separation og good side and bad side" idea was just a sanitation in order to make it more for the kids because I think the original idea from the book was that jekyll wanted to create an alter ego to get away with doing a bunch of crimes but the potion went out of control eventually
I don't know where it originally came from, but the "separate good and bad" idea is actually the justification I have heard most often when it comes to adaptations of this story. I don't know where it originated, but I assume that it was changed so that Dr. Jekyll was more sympathetic for some reason.
I could be wrong since I haven't read it in a while, but I don't remember such a thing, and this is how Wikipedia summarizes that point: "Jekyll's letter explains that he had indulged in unstated vices and feared discovery. He found a way to transform himself and thereby indulge his vices without fear of detection." which sounds a lot like what the first commenter said.
@@gracekim1998 It's not always perfectly reliable but "can't be trusted" is excessive. Also, I've read the book and remembered it saying that; I was just refreshing my memory. I'm quite certain that Jekyll's motivation wasn't removing his evil side.
This was actually one of my favorite movies when I was a little kid. I used to rent a VHS copy of it from a local video store all the time back in the early 90's. And I think part of why I loved it was precisely because it was so much more brutal than any other cartoon.
My theory is that Lanyon secretly has his own Mr. Hyde personality, which is why he is so offended. This Hyde chap, butting in on his territory and maybe getting them both caught somehow.
A major positive about this movie is that it's as faithful to the original story as a kids movie could make it. There maybe a few flaws here and there but I commend the makers for doing this part so well.
Christie Greenwood What, that Heathcliff is like her long-lost brother? The were raised together, but I don't think of it as incest if the people aren't blood-related.
+Master Markus I don't think so, either. I just mentioned the interpretation because it fits with the whole “this is not appropriate for kids“ theme. It is out there, both literally and figuratively. :-)
Being an Aussie, it's weird that I never knew about this until you reviewed it, Phelous. It seems like the kind of thing I should've come across on VHS at some point in the late 80s, early 90s. Speaking of Australian animated adaptations, there was also a Peter Pan film made in the 80s. It's been a while since I've seen it, but from memory there were some similarities to the Disney version, so looking back I get the feeling it was a Good Times-esque attempt at getting a film out that some people might buy instead of the older, well-known classic. It wasn't too bad though; probably a bit middle of the road, so neither good enough to be a great film, nor outstandingly and enjoyably bad enough to riff on.
This movie was my childhood. I used to have it on VHS. I watched it all the time. I loved it and still enjoy it today. I remember Mr Hyde terrified me as a kid.
I think people not wanting children to know that death exists is mostly an American thing because you see it often in animation from other countries and same with sex stuff, alcohol, scary stuff and other things.
I thinks they conflate implicit with explicit - implicit meaning can only be determined by understanding the context - children (as in younger children) learn this context when they're older and understand the greater meaning (hence the rating system and the reason the murders are not explicit - as in shown on screen). Censoring all content doesn't help, it just infantalises the society that censors it, stunting their growth (mentally).
1. "Death exists"? Seriously? Do you not actually watch American stuff? Even shows on Nick Jr. acknowledge death. What's scary about this movie is the *protagonist* is killing people, and involuntarily at that, and that is scary for everyone. 2. Phelous is Canadian, but I guess we're all the same country, aren't we?
Im a huge fan of animation in general and i watch hundreds of different American cartoons actually and in the huge majority of them they try to pretend that death and people being killed does not exist. That there are a few that does not try to hide it like Gravity Falls for example does not remove the fact that most of them do try to hide it and in some of the cartoons where one or two characters dies like Avatar The Last Airbender for example they never actually say that the character is dead and they die in a way so that its not completely obvious. At the end of Avatar i heard that they were not allowed to have the main character try to kill anybody because its a kids show so they made Aang refuse to kill and made it so he removed Firelord Ozais fire bending instead. And if your fans of animation you should be aware that most of the time they are not allowed to say things like kill or murder in American cartoons and just says destroy instead.
I never understood why it is almost every incarnation of this story depicts Hyde as a bulky large man and often with green skin. He was described in the book as short and stock with large hands and a face that shows no compassion for his fellow man but pure sadistic pleasure. It was to represent that while Jekyll of course has a dark side as all men do, it's not the biggest part of him. Doing it as most adaptations do suggests that the evil within us is larger than our very selves.
VauschthePuca Reading your comment makes me want to read the original story~ :o But I think it's the want to exaggerate things for the "big" screen. Also it's probably due to a lack of imagination. When older versions decide to make a classic baddie look a certain way, later creators tend to follow suit, regardless of whether or not the early versions make sense. Frankenstein's monster is a great example; they almost always look like the Boris Karloff version. The only classic I can thing think of that did a drastic aesthetic overhaul is the vampire and... well, we all know how that went, so maybe it's not entirely bad, maintaining an image... Honestly, I think it's mostly because of laziness. Why communicate an altered state of consciousness/drastic personality shift by way of a subtle yet powerful performance change when you can just make the other personality morph it up and look like a monster? The audience won't be able to tell the difference if he still looks the same! Make him big, green, and hairy! Makes it easy!
Original story is kind of interesting in that the reveal that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person is practically a twist ending. Like, if you didn't know the story it's practically a Shyamalan level twist. Which is another big change, probably due to the fact that Jekyll and Hyde is so ingrained in culture that everyone knows the story by now even if they haven't read it. That would be my guess, but the way Hyde is in the book is a bit more unsettling to me. It's a small man with a sadistic look on his face that can apparently beat people to death rather easily and enjoys doing it. Funnily enough, Junji Ito (Mangaka behind Uzumaki, Gyo, Amagira Fault) wrote a Frankenstein story in which he drew the monster as described in the book. It's rather unsettling. So at this point the most original thing would be to make him as the book described him. Does it say something when adapting something 1:1 is more original nowadays?
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
"When he was just murdering, I thought I could deal with it, but now he's stealing silverware to throw in the river!"
The fiend!
They’re completely useless now
"The real cause of my death was that conversation with him"
This guy deserves to interact with Old Man
It's too bad Dr Lanyon was only brought back once or so, for the first "Diamonds, MY GOD" line.
I know🤣 so funny
9:02 "Almost like Jekyll _knew_ it was gonna turn out this way instead of ridding himself of evil."
That's...actually pretty close to how it was in the original story, if I recall correctly. Jekyll didn't create his formula for some noble cause of ridding humanity of evil; he did it so that he could have a way to act out his darker impulses without fear of repercussion or guilt. He only started regretting it when the transformations got out of his control.
Exactly.
NGL, I (& I'm sure many other people, as well) much prefer the traditional idea. ^_^
"I will never recover."
No. Perhaps, in hindsight, snorting that rat poison wasn't such a great idea...
No the real cause of my death was that conversation we had
That wasnt rat poison. It was cocaine.
"You're not lessening the blow you're just being amazingly dark... and I commend you!"
Me too!
16:13 19th century fact -- people left cards when they were visiting their friends, and the friends were not home. It was to indicate "hi, I stopped by", and was a fail safe for the servant's memory.
+Flora Posteschild Yeah, he probably left his card to Hyde so that he wouldn't forget his name.
Ah, yes, the calling card! 😊
@@TheMouseAvenger they're phantom thieves now XD
This isn't nearly accurate! They forgot the infinite-range bombs and the birds that take dumps on Jekyll, and the cane isn't supposed to kill anything except bees!
IT DOES NOTHING!11!1!!! WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!
And the townsfolk aren’t super pissed off at Jekyll for NO reason whatsoever
I see what you did there.
AVGN.
And Jesus didnt hit him with the cross
that silverware is completely useless now
This needs to be a meme.
I mean, it is a meme, it's just localized a bit.
ProbeVoyages oh I'm happy now. :-D
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
gas mask collector review no! Throw it in a great big fire!!
Fun fact: In the original book, Jekyll and Hyde being the same person was a HUGE twist and wasn't revealed until the end of the story.
Plus it wasn't so much a split-personality as it was Jekyll letting loose and putting all the blame on Hyde. He treated it like another person, but it was more disassociate as opposed to an actual separate personality.
Wao... Interesting
Also, in the original story he only killed one person.
@@Igarappappa Does create a good relatable issue on the fact we all live on a fragile piece of glass called Reputation, and the thinner it is as you become a better and better being to the point one mistake could crash down
Hence why Jekyll created that potion so as long as he is Hyde with an already broken reputation, he can still patch his.....but they were patched with those cheap bandages you get at a walmart
Yeah but I imagine that everyone knows the twist
I think this actually has MORE killings than the book!
LadyLydarth it does! I'm amused XD
LadyLydarth how.many murders does the book have?
One
Are we sure this is a "kids" movie?
@@Bladedfox14 well, The hunchback of Notre Dame is a ''kids" movie too...
i just realized she's not telling them a story like hansel and gretel or something, this is something real that actually happened to her. she decided to just randomly tell some kids she's babysitting about some horrific traumatic string of murders she actually experienced firsthand, wtf!? who does that!? lmao!
Tbf, they asked her if it was a true story and if Mr. Hyde was a monster.
based grandma
I mean, it is a story lol
That monster! He threw that silverware into the river! It's completely useless, now...
HEEEEEEEEEE!
I want an animated kids version of Jack the Ripper with a comedic cat, dammit!
***** missing the point much? it's all about that wonderful Silence of the lambs: the musical: on ice: Live!
Andy Semple I'm waiting for Friday the 13th the animated musical with a scene interrupting bear, a random idiot running through a field, and a comic-relief cat.
Laura Wanco and a lucky cricket on the hearth with a book that you read out its ass DEUGHEEEE!!!!
Laura Wanco Screw that, where's my "Saw" nick junior show?
sm4carnageihope I don't know, but it needs to happen.
In the original story, Mr. Hyde's body count was WAY lower. You would think the cartoon version would lighten things up a bit, not turn the darkness up to 11.
I can't believe people are actually arguing that Phelous should've read the book before watching this movie in order to appreciate it better and explain some of the plot holes. Do you expect the children this movie was _meant for_ to have read the book beforehand as well??
None of the adaptations follow the book anyway. If someone made a completely faithful adaptation of the book, only with the names changed around, everyone would think it was an original story. I'm dead serious.
@@handsomebrick I mean, this one does cling a lot more tightly. As do a lot of the weird-ass ripoffs Phelous does, like all the Hunchback stories.
@A person on TH-cam Was that the one with the wings or the talking instruments?
The one thing I will say for this adaptation is that it's a little closer to the jeckyl/hyde relationship of the original story, when most try to super simplify it as "split personality" when it's a bit more complicated than just that
@@smileitsjustagame2937 true. Makes you wonder why they made an adaptation on a adult book for children 😅especially the topic of this book
Hyde wasn't a monster in the traditional sense in the book. Horrible person? Yes. hideous monster? Not really.
Yeah, he was described as extremely off-putting but more because of his eyes and the general repulsiveness that a depraved human can evoke in others, but nothing like Frankenstein's mosnter or Dracula, for sure...
Kasumi Ryona Gaming and he was also short, as in dwarfish, with his arms and legs proportional to each other, so he’s basically the Victorian version of the hulk minus the green.
@@KasumiRINA Even Frankenstein's monster wasn't hideous in the traditional sense, looking at him just tripped people's mental "THIS SHOULD NOT EXIST" alarms
@@KasumiRINA"My name is...MR. HYDE!!!" 😈
So thats where "OH MY GOD" came from in your son of the lion king review...
+EvilThorn And also "Henry! MY GOD!" in the Thomas the Tank Engine Transformer review...
:P
Exactly why I came here
Credit to the actor; he really sold that line
I love how in the novel Hyde is described as short, and here he is about the size of half a house.
Plot twist: The Maid committed the murders and blamed Mr Jekyll/Hyde.
"Well you see kids, I kept Dr Jekyl's old notes...and you know, I felt tonight would be a good night to...to...TEST IT AND RAAGGGHHHHHHH!!!"
*cue nightmaare fuel as Nanny starts shredding her clothing, her eyes go yellow, and a large shadow plays over the bed*
I love how the voice actors are trying to sound like Brits but their Aussie accents keep slipping through. "A monstah?"
Since most Australians I've met have perversely dark humor, this makes perfect sense. I mean like laughing at A Clockwork Orange dark humor.
I actually HAVE laughed at "A Clockwork Orange" and I was really surprised that people were horribly disturbed by the "Singin' in the Rain" scene because I thought it was like... a dark comedy moment.
@@mastermarkus5307 1qq was qaaa
@@lovenotegestapo
???
Apparently I'm more Australian than American because I laughed at all of that, too... My Father and I often freak people out by laughing at the most horrible things. 🤣😂🤣
@@mastermarkus5307 Wait... The drooves were supposed to be scary?
Also some have claimed the film is meant to take place in the future in a post-apocalypse, but like, nothing futuristic happens nor is there any indication that any kind of End of the World has happened...
I like a lot of the imagery from it, but as a movie.. it just makes no sense, especially since it's missing an ending.
6:19 Phelous, do you really expect common sense from the era of arsenic paint and heroin cough syrup?
True
Please tell me the couch syrup thing is a joke?
@@Hessed3712 They put cocaine in it too
@@Hessed3712 do you mean cough syrup?
@@Hessed3712 I suggest researching history 😅
Honestly if this was renamed and sold as Doctor Jekyll and Mister Poof, I'm sure sales would increase.
Lightscribe225 Either that or Search For The Worst episode by IHE complaining about this being a rip off of Mr Jekll and Mr Hyde.
So, according to the title at the beginning, 20 years passed between the Jekyll/Hyde incident and the maid telling it to her grandchildren. But she's clearly an old lady there with gray hair. Yet she looked young during her time with Jekyll. Holy time warp Batman!
+Gasoline85 Being a complete spaz and wimp is known to add on the ages. Just look at Hans Moleman.
Gasoline85 She could've been 40 in the past or had children at a young age.
Gasoline85 yeah!
from 2017
Gasoline85 People died younger and looked older, too.
I noticed most old stories go like that, young character's parents look very old, gray hair, wrinkles and everything, but they must be around 40.
A little piece of 19th century trivia.
At 16:11 , the “ calling card” isn’t so that Jekyll actually calls him.
In the 19th century, it was standard etiquette that people would regularly go and visit their friends homes to catch up with them and enquire on their well-being.That practice was called “calling”.
If your friends weren’t at home, you’d give their servants or family members your “calling card” so that your friends could know that you came to visit them.
When telephones became more standard in every home, people started “phone calling”, so they didn’t necessarily have to go see their friends in person to catch up and chat. And, slowly, voicemail replaced calling cards.
So when the guy at 16:11 leaves his calling card to Hyde, it’s today’s equivalent of leaving a voicemail saying “We need to talk”.
"So when the guy at 16:11 leaves his calling card to Hyde"
His name is Utterson.
@@barktrap Well, I can't exactly blame people for forgetting, considering most adaptations omit Utterson (most likely since, once the mystery aspect is removed, his character becomes kind of superfluous)
That’s so cool!!
Mr. Porteous PLEASE consider a career in voice acting, at least part time! Your reviews are hilarious, but your voice acting is the highlight! Or at least one of the highlights.
UPDATE: I've discovered "Lloyd." So I'll rephrase this post: do voice acting more often!
Lloyd?
The Cinema Snob burned a bunch of money on some animation about his cat Lloyd as a talking cat man, Phelous did some work on it.
The only real plot hole in this movie is that Hyde killed two people... WITH HIS CANE!
We all know Jekyll/Hyde's cane doesn't do anything.
Saddam Hussein Well of course he could kill people. He was Hyde, and not Jekyll.
+Saddam Hussein Should have used the Psycho-Wave
+Saddam Hussein Well it can kill a bee at least...
+Saddam Hussein DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF THE CANE
+Saddam Hussein Nobody seems to get this reference. Thumbs up for you.
He tossed away silverware! What a MONSTER!
It's okay. They were going to be stolen by Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, anyway, to go with her spoons.
I think the real mystery is how Nanny aged 40-60 years in only 20.
she meet with the doctor and they did nothing for 40-60 years and than he just dumped her ass.
And it seems not a moment too soon.
All that fainting really took a lot out of women back in those days.
Long holidays to -Tatooine- India.
19th century: it was either stress or something else. also she's not 60 XD they probblly thought 40 was ancient back then
Also you can have grey hair and NOT be 60 😂
Lawyer dude: "He totally left me all his money. It's all there in this will he made."
Sir Butler: "May I see?"
Lawyer dude: "No, you may not."
Sir Butler: "Fair enough. We'll send you the money shortly."
I mean, that actually really is what happens. One of the running subplots in the book is Jekyll, who had previously stated his intent to leave a portion of his fortune to Ottisen, suddenly asking him to draw up a new will leaving it all to Hyde instead. This turned out to have been a fail-safe, in case Jekyll was no longer able to keep up the facade; he'd falsify his own murder and live the remainder of his life pretending to be Hyde while still able to enjoy his fortune. In the end he recants this will and restores Ottisen's portion.
Throwing the silverwares into the river is Hyde's own version of Joker's "It's about sending a message."
thankfully this cartoon is on youtube and i didn't have to hunt for a physical copy. The music is probably the best part
Who knew a dark story like this could have such a funky soundtrack?
I actually got my hands on a copy, it was very boring, wouldn't recommend watching it even for making fun of bad movies purposes.
@@daredrogers3884 how did you find it?
You know what you should do next, the only animated adaption of the Phantom of the Opera.
Uh, there already IS an animated adaptation of "The Phantom of the Opera". In fact, there might be two, and I remember hearing about one that's allegedly still in production.
IAmTheUnison she meant review it
Wasn't there also a animated Frankenstein?
What
+Judge C
I have watched the TV Special anime made by Toei. It's cheap but it's not exactly hilariously bad.
what kind of monster tosses silverware!!!
I don't know about an animated movie but Jekyll and Hyde makes one heck of a musical.
And a Shitty Video Game 🤨😏
Heck, yeah! 👍
Though you should check out Jekyll & Hyde in animated form in "The Pagemaster". ^_^ It's an underappreciated animated classic, & Leonard Nimoy does a FANTASTIC job as J&H! ❤
@@randalgraves6979 Oh, we mustn't forget THAT, must we? XD
At least Jekyll’s a better mad scientist then doctor Frankenstein.
What if Old Man consumed the rat poison? I'd like to see that.
He'd probably be either Senior moustache, or the Father from the Beauty & the Beast anime.
He might become Gentleman. Now do something else.
He'd become completely useless!
Hhheeeeee->chokes
He'd turn into Donald Trump.
I always though someone should've done the classic monster's animated version, including Dracula, Frankenstein and this one, but in a high quality high budget movie like Dreamwork's
What's especially weird about this is that Hyde only officially killed one person in the book, and that was what actually got him in huge trouble and made Jekyll stop taking the potion. In the animated movie here, murder is the first thing he does, and keeps doing.
(And of course, Hyde was just a disguise for Jekyll to indulge his base desires, they were never two separate personalities in the book)
thank you for confirming that it's NOT split personality
@@gracekim1998 Oh gosh, it's my pleasure. It feels like such a disservice to the original story to leave out that very important detail
@@Readasaur 👍 I noticed a lot of people here in the comments keep describing it as split personality making me MORE confused 😅 I haven’t read the book but I do want to look into the dynamic of the tale more
@@gracekim1998 It's been years since I read the book, but it was essentially an allegory for addiction. It starts out as a way for Jekyll to cut loose without significant repercussions, but spirals out of control as he finds himself needing more and more to have the same effect. He finds himself succumbing to "transformations" during the day when he needs to fulfill obligations, which begins to negatively impact his life. By this point, he has also been engaging in a lot of bad behaviour, which he blames Hyde for rather than taking ownership of his actions. For him, creating the persona of Hyde was easier than admitting that he, a well-respected doctor, had fallen to the moral failing of addiction. The people around him supported this, since a doctor surely couldn't be an addict.
Once he runs out of the chemical he had been using, he tries to order a new batch, only to discover the new stuff doesn't work for him at all. His initial batch was somehow impure, and he doesn't know what it was laced with. This, in addition to having killed someone while intoxicated, places him in a very dark place. The story ends with his death, as his friends and the police find "Mr. Hyde." He leaves them a note explaining what had happened to him. It's a bit of a downer ending, but it made a significant impact on the perception of addiction at the time. It was one of the driving forces behind the cultural shift in seeing it as an illness rather than a moral failing. Strangely enough, the book never clearly calls it addiction. It's all in the subtext.
@@kipandren ah ok
I gotta say, this story isn't at all accurate to the book. Despite being the titular character, Jekyll isn't the main focus. Instead, it's the lawer, Mr. Utterson, who is the focus as he tries to solve the mystery that seems to surround Mr. Hyde. Most people seem to think of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" as a horror story, when it seems like Robert Louis Stevenson wrote it more like a murder mystery.
Then how do you explain this "version" of Jekyll and Hyde?
Thomas Fredrickson What do you mean?
It's on my top 5 books. I love it. I get really pissed off because I've never seen any film that is even close to the book. For example when reading the book the Utterson (and the reader) think Hyde is Jekylls illegitimate son and is blackmailing him. Also Hyde is smaller and younger. And of course, there's the fact that there is something powerful in being Hyde, because Jekyll is a good man who made a mistake.
+Chris P I know, why do they never do anything like how it is in the book.
Joe Cool Creative liberties, I guess.
If they wanted Dr. Jekyll to have a love interest, they should have used the maid. It would have been more meaningful than him looking at a random woman in the park.
+ecojosh1
As a fan of the original story, it annoys me to no end that every adaptation feels the need to have a love interest for Dr. Jekyll. Same thing for The Island of Doctor Moreau. I don't know why people in the media (Hollywood especially) love to throw in love interests where they don't belong.
Master Markus And like in Patch Adams... Seriously why this movie needed a heartbroken love story that didn't even match the real events baffles me, but what baffles even more is that people wants those vain love stories to happen in films that even needed them to begin with!
@BilboKoira No. He is better without an romantic interest.
@BilboKoira I'm not opposed to making him gay, but how would that be more reasonable exactly? A love interest is a love interest, regardless of their gender...
@tultsi93Finnish almost all characters in the book are male, Doctor Jekyll is described as handsome and imposing, and there are definitely too much strong feelings between men for the story to be completely straight. @Yawning Lion original story has zero heterosexual romance but clearly a total "male friendship romance" overload.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a mystery novella with very dark themes, not sure why it's made into a cartoon
+CoLeMaWeSoMe I'd imagine because it was cheaper than live action.
+CoLeMaWeSoMe Well, we all live in such a world were things get dumbed down. I wonder how Hamlet or King Lear would be transformed into a cartoon, or even a Kid's Special.
+Ivan Maiorov there's already a kid's hamlet
it's called 'the lion king'
:D
Wait, is their rape in the original novella?
Ivan Maiorov There is Russian cartoon Hamlet from 1992 and it was faithfull to the book
Well, you can't deny Hyde has nice eye makeup....
I loved the book. Dr. Jekyll was a seemingly perfect person but he secretly wanted to do evil things so he created the potion, thinking that he could remain in control of his immorality but Mr.Hyde slowly starts trying to take over.
God, Phelous you really are an underrated reviewer. I know some people don't like your style but I love it. Your style is unique and you deserve a couple hundred thousand more subscribers. Also, HENRY OH MY GOD!!!
Kirby! the fifth turtle
lol why the hell is dude so mad @ 4:56 like really? what the hell is wrong with him? and I love the running joke with him Phelous this is one of my favorite reviews of yours. I love this one the first beauty and the beast, all the bootleg zones. when you talked about the real ghostbusters and how and why they changed it to the awful version and of course the stupid 80s TMNT moments.you are really a funny and talented man, keep up the great work, you are truly bring joy to people's lives.
IIRC the character in question is somewhat of an intellectual rival to Jekyll, and is both instinctively opposing him because he wants to one-up Jekyll, and is also annoyed that his "rival" is suddenly spouting such a patently unscientific hypothesis based on abstract concepts like "good" and "evil".
I mean it was the 19th century
How about an animated documentary about Albert Fish! That's sure to get the kids rolling in!
Not before the animated films based on the lives of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer. The one I can't wait for is the animated tale of Earl Bradley and use it as a story of conscious to warn kids about sick child molesters and killers in the world.
Make sure to have Albert kill even more kids than he did in reality, complete with cartoon sound effects with rapes and murders occurring off screen.
There have been many movies based on the story of Ed Gein, but never an animated one!
...I really wish I hadn’t looked that up. Jesus Christ.
Make sure to make Albert into an anthropomorphic fish.
I've read the book, love the story, and I'll say it right now, this movie actually does touch upon most of the important plot points from the book. HOWEVER, it does so in the worst, most haphazardly way humanly possible! The result is a butchered mess! Go read the book, it's not very long.
It was probably trying to reconcile the book with the iconic Universal version, resulting in a weird combination of plot points from both.
I did, and while the transformation wasn’t that dramatic, I did feel it was a jolly good read.
Is the book more of a adult fiction first?
i'm gonna try to find it
Can you imagine if the maid told the children how the story actually ended?
"And then out of pure hopelessness and pain, Dr. Jekyll committed suicide. The end. Well, goodnight kids!"
I'm always disappointed none of these film versions ever adapt the actual book. Like the fact they always try and pretend that Jekyll is a good guy who's manipulated by Hyde in some way. But in the book Jekyll claims to be good yes. But he also freely admits that he feels constricted by his reputation as an upstanding citizen. He takes the potion intentionally in order to live out a life doing what he always wanted to do with no consequences. The horror at the end where he starts changing without the potion isn't because he's trying to redeem himself, it's because if he gets stuck as Hyde he could be caught and forced to actually pay for his crimes.
Anyway, good video! Despite my Jekyll/Hyde themed hang ups.
A bit like how I feel regarding adaptations of Barrie's Peter Pan.
Peter isn't meant to be a character that changes, but in almost every adaptation, they have to have him learn something.
80MWH good point
Whoa
@@80MWH hmm I just it’s due to the fact that it help with the themes maybe 🤔 and I guess a stagnant protagonist usually isn’t interesting enough
@@gracekim1998 I agree with that. :-)
As to the Nanny's story I think she knows of the things she hasn't seen because Jekyll wrote it in his journal which was probably given away or read by the lawyer guy. Still this is a bizzare movie and not exactly a faithful adaptation as in the book it was never clear what Hyde did. It was Victorian Era and it would have been considered scandalous for a man of his position to go to prostitutes or to gamble, because while men weren't as retrained as women there still were strict social norms. Anyway even if he did murder people this is an awkward adaptation of it and as you said it does make it even worse...
I've lost count of how many times I've re-watched this review, and I always lose it at "FRUFRUFRUFRUFRUUUU!" (Eyes spinning)
I would love to see Ohmygawd Guy and Belle's Dad meet each other.
"HENRY! OH MY GOD!"
"He's completely useless, now! HEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"
The "Oh, my God!" scene from the book was when it's revealed to the reader that Jekyll and Hyde are the same person and not only that, but it's also when supernatural elements are introduced in the story, so Lynyon's reaction was meant to also be the reader's reaction. It's from there that we get the whole story from Jekyll's perspective and the mystery blanks are filled in.
"Don't bring my achievements up ever again. That pisses me off, apparently."
Don't know why, but I just love this line. 😂
This actually seems like decent animation, I'm getting a lot of Chuck Jones vibes from the style - wouldn't be shocked if he had something to do with this considering his Jungle Book adaptations were a little dark as well XD But good god at those unfittingly comical death scenes... lol
Also, I swear I recognize Dr. Jekyll's voice from somewhere, he almost sounds like one of the rabbits from Watership Down (specifically Hazel)
The book wasn't actually about a split personality though, Mr. Hyde was more an elaborate (uninhibited) mask for Dr. Jekyll to use in order to satisfy his darker based urges that he as Dr. Jekyll, an upstanding pillar of the community, couldn't act on. Also the book was intended for at least older children which is why the book shied away from the blood and gore of a typical horror story.
What about adults?
@@gracekim1998 I think Hollywood has provided more than enough adult targeted audience films for the retelling of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The story is in the public domain so maybe there is someone who decided to write an adult take on the book as well. I was never curious enough to look any up though cuz I thought the original tale was perfect.
Yeah I’m still confused 😅
The book was intended for kids??? I thought it was an adult novel.
@@SwiftNimblefoot nope, that's why (despite the dark themes and adult main cast of characters) there are no profanities, gore, or sexual overtones in this horror mystery novel cuz the author intended for (older) children to be able to read the story
Mr. Poof is the third personallity that upsets people with irritating conversations.
This is one of my favorite episodes!
While this may be the only animated adaptation, I know of at least two cartoons that did parodies of it...one of which, surprisingly enough, was VeggieTales. (That was actually what first introduced me to the story xD)
I remember Arthur did a bit on it.
+gircakes didn't brain have a song about it? I seem to recall something along those lines.
ChaosSandwhich Yep
And Scooby Doo did a spoof
AuroraKnux is the Veggietale version better than this?
From 2017
Seriously, I appreciate how Burbank wasn't afraid to capture the darker moments of the book into a 50 minute animated film that aired on TV. I'm legitimately, unironically waiting for them to do an adaptation of John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men", THAT'S how much I love them!
Doing this review when you did was absolutely brilliant and clearly set your career trajectory from that point on. I have watched this video a hundred times, usually drifting off to sleep as I do. 12 years on and I never get tired of your content.
imagine if they did an animated jack the ripper film
It could work... in Tim Burton style. In fact, I think an animated version of Sweeney Tood would be better than the live action film)
Oh boy 😅 I don’t think the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was was ever uncovered either 🤩
I assume El Mustachio is supposed to be the Member of Parliament Hyde killed in the book.
There was an animated one for the ABC Weekend Special in the late 80's or early 90's too.
The fuck?
I think I remember this...
Showing murder , lightening it with comedic animation techniques , no romance ...... i might just be interested in more Australian movies for kids . this sounds amazing
Jekyl and Hyde was never a split personality, it was more two sides of the same person, or, (as a bit of a tortured example) like you can meet the same person online and in real life and find they act completely differently. Hyde is just Jekyl minus his inhibitions, doing all the fun stuff that Jekyl himself would be ashamed of because Victorian's (am I right?lol)
Is it like a disguise potion then?
@@sarah98917 I think Overly Sarcastic Productions put it best: Think of it as kind of a chemical secret identity
So basically a persona. The way Peter acts differently as himself and in his costume as Spider-Man
I guess the "separation og good side and bad side" idea was just a sanitation in order to make it more for the kids because I think the original idea from the book was that jekyll wanted to create an alter ego to get away with doing a bunch of crimes but the potion went out of control eventually
I don't know where it originally came from, but the "separate good and bad" idea is actually the justification I have heard most often when it comes to adaptations of this story. I don't know where it originated, but I assume that it was changed so that Dr. Jekyll was more sympathetic for some reason.
I'm pretty sure the book has Jeckyll's motivation being trying to remove his own evil side.
I could be wrong since I haven't read it in a while, but I don't remember such a thing, and this is how Wikipedia summarizes that point: "Jekyll's letter explains that he had indulged in unstated vices and feared discovery. He found a way to transform himself and thereby indulge his vices without fear of detection." which sounds a lot like what the first commenter said.
@@mastermarkus5307 you realise Wikipedia can’t be trusted right?
@@gracekim1998
It's not always perfectly reliable but "can't be trusted" is excessive. Also, I've read the book and remembered it saying that; I was just refreshing my memory.
I'm quite certain that Jekyll's motivation wasn't removing his evil side.
This was actually one of my favorite movies when I was a little kid. I used to rent a VHS copy of it from a local video store all the time back in the early 90's. And I think part of why I loved it was precisely because it was so much more brutal than any other cartoon.
Making my yearly pilgrimage back to this video.
My theory is that Lanyon secretly has his own Mr. Hyde personality, which is why he is so offended. This Hyde chap, butting in on his territory and maybe getting them both caught somehow.
This movie and your review out of it introduced me to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and made me read the book. Thank you, Phelous. ^^
Let's get an animated kids film based on the Call of Cthulhu then.
Edith Ume SOMEBODY MAKE THIS!
The Real Ghostbusters actually faced cathulu. "Collect call of Cathulu"
Iirc that actually exists I think it's called Howard Lovecraft and the frozen kingdom
Um I hate to break it to you but it did get one😅
**coughs in Howard Lovecraft and the Frozen Kingdom**
Dr. Jekyll's design in this movie makes me think of Simon Petrikov from "Adventure Time."
+nerdsman567 Hydes design makes me think of Gargamel.
Dalibor Jovanovic Haha Yeah, I can definitely see the resemblance.
redloiyu654jay lol I guess I just have "Adventure Time" on the mind. XD
A major positive about this movie is that it's as faithful to the original story as a kids movie could make it. There maybe a few flaws here and there but I commend the makers for doing this part so well.
It's funny how Hyde goes murdering everyone in this (and other adaptations, I think) when he Just kills one guy in the book
Not even intentionally, he's just a nut who randomly assaults people and doesn't know why.
Why is Hyde portrayed as bigger in this? In the book, Hyde was much smaller than Jekyll...
Oh wait was I expecting accuracy?
My bad.
W K Cyrokin Yeah for literacy! But seriously, the book is great.
Yeah, he's supposed to be a shrimpy, scrawny mofo, like he was in "The Pagemaster".
Arthur did a cool musical skit thing around Dr. Jekll and Mr. Hyde. It's not the same thing at all, but I was surprised they even touched it.
My favourite is Utterson and Lanyon blanking the locksmith's attempt at banter
9:58
El Moustachio is dead?
Nah.
He had a light... concussion.
and the worst part about it was that during this time he was not able to see Mr. Poof once 😞
I can see his parachutes from here!
HENREH! OH MY GOD!
My brother and I watched this movie as kids and we still shout "HENREH! OH MY GOD!" to each other to this day xD
i wold like to se Wuthering Heights made into animation for children :D.
Oh yes, especially if it includes the interpretation that Cathy and Heathcliff are in an incestuous relationship! XD
That doesn't make sense! They aren't related.
+Master Markus Some people read that into the novel.
Christie Greenwood
What, that Heathcliff is like her long-lost brother? The were raised together, but I don't think of it as incest if the people aren't blood-related.
+Master Markus I don't think so, either. I just mentioned the interpretation because it fits with the whole “this is not appropriate for kids“ theme. It is out there, both literally and figuratively. :-)
Being an Aussie, it's weird that I never knew about this until you reviewed it, Phelous. It seems like the kind of thing I should've come across on VHS at some point in the late 80s, early 90s.
Speaking of Australian animated adaptations, there was also a Peter Pan film made in the 80s. It's been a while since I've seen it, but from memory there were some similarities to the Disney version, so looking back I get the feeling it was a Good Times-esque attempt at getting a film out that some people might buy instead of the older, well-known classic. It wasn't too bad though; probably a bit middle of the road, so neither good enough to be a great film, nor outstandingly and enjoyably bad enough to riff on.
Now we wait until Laika get a hold on this story and created an good animated film of it
How'd I miss this gem? Well this was hilarious! Thanks for reviewing, Phelous.
Idk why but it feels like this animated movie was ahead of its time in a way.
Oh hey, this is actually one of my childhood favorites to watch. Probably the exact thing that got me so into horror, now that I think about it.
You know what's ironic? This is probably still the closest adaptation to the book, and that annoys me.
Uh, I know its been 6 years but I just noticed that this Nanny character sure aged a whole lot in "20 years"
In those times being in your 40’s or something was viewed as if you were like 80’s🤷♀️
"Yes you see, I'm still very bothered by that one thing I didn't agree with! I'm a moron who can't let anything go!"
This movie was my childhood. I used to have it on VHS. I watched it all the time. I loved it and still enjoy it today. I remember Mr Hyde terrified me as a kid.
I love the dance Phelous does in the beginning, cracks me up every time
I actually saw this on Nickelodeon here in the states and I loved it.
In the early 1990's
I think people not wanting children to know that death exists is mostly an American thing because you see it often in animation from other countries and same with sex stuff, alcohol, scary stuff and other things.
I thinks they conflate implicit with explicit - implicit meaning can only be determined by understanding the context - children (as in younger children) learn this context when they're older and understand the greater meaning (hence the rating system and the reason the murders are not explicit - as in shown on screen). Censoring all content doesn't help, it just infantalises the society that censors it, stunting their growth (mentally).
1. "Death exists"? Seriously? Do you not actually watch American stuff? Even shows on Nick Jr. acknowledge death. What's scary about this movie is the *protagonist* is killing people, and involuntarily at that, and that is scary for everyone.
2. Phelous is Canadian, but I guess we're all the same country, aren't we?
AT Productions Yeah. That's kind of what I'm saying. Watching just about any American animation for children would prove him wrong.
Im a huge fan of animation in general and i watch hundreds of different American cartoons actually and in the huge majority of them they try to pretend that death and people being killed does not exist.
That there are a few that does not try to hide it like Gravity Falls for example does not remove the fact that most of them do try to hide it and in some of the cartoons where one or two characters dies like Avatar The Last Airbender for example they never actually say that the character is dead and they die in a way so that its not completely obvious.
At the end of Avatar i heard that they were not allowed to have the main character try to kill anybody because its a kids show so they made Aang refuse to kill and made it so he removed Firelord Ozais fire bending instead.
And if your fans of animation you should be aware that most of the time they are not allowed to say things like kill or murder in American cartoons and just says destroy instead.
There's a lot of death in Disney animated movies.
24:30 It IS suprising. Jeykll seemed to be immune to poisons, I was genuinely suprised that's what killed him.
Holy hell, I remember this cartoon. I didn't realize just how messed up it was in retrospect.
Kinda surprised there isn't an anime adaptation of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde!
this video had an unskipable ad on it... it's completely useless now..
I love how he's in basically that Family Guy "dead pose" at 7:38. Face down and arm twisted back, haha.
I never understood why it is almost every incarnation of this story depicts Hyde as a bulky large man and often with green skin. He was described in the book as short and stock with large hands and a face that shows no compassion for his fellow man but pure sadistic pleasure. It was to represent that while Jekyll of course has a dark side as all men do, it's not the biggest part of him. Doing it as most adaptations do suggests that the evil within us is larger than our very selves.
VauschthePuca Reading your comment makes me want to read the original story~ :o
But I think it's the want to exaggerate things for the "big" screen. Also it's probably due to a lack of imagination. When older versions decide to make a classic baddie look a certain way, later creators tend to follow suit, regardless of whether or not the early versions make sense. Frankenstein's monster is a great example; they almost always look like the Boris Karloff version. The only classic I can thing think of that did a drastic aesthetic overhaul is the vampire and... well, we all know how that went, so maybe it's not entirely bad, maintaining an image...
Honestly, I think it's mostly because of laziness. Why communicate an altered state of consciousness/drastic personality shift by way of a subtle yet powerful performance change when you can just make the other personality morph it up and look like a monster? The audience won't be able to tell the difference if he still looks the same! Make him big, green, and hairy! Makes it easy!
Original story is kind of interesting in that the reveal that Hyde and Jekyll are the same person is practically a twist ending. Like, if you didn't know the story it's practically a Shyamalan level twist. Which is another big change, probably due to the fact that Jekyll and Hyde is so ingrained in culture that everyone knows the story by now even if they haven't read it.
That would be my guess, but the way Hyde is in the book is a bit more unsettling to me. It's a small man with a sadistic look on his face that can apparently beat people to death rather easily and enjoys doing it. Funnily enough, Junji Ito (Mangaka behind Uzumaki, Gyo, Amagira Fault) wrote a Frankenstein story in which he drew the monster as described in the book. It's rather unsettling.
So at this point the most original thing would be to make him as the book described him. Does it say something when adapting something 1:1 is more original nowadays?
I'd imagine the poison would have made him sick. Hence the green skin.
@@foxymetroid mmmm
@@redkingrauri3769 well you got a point there😅