blastbowman The series started off decently strong with it starting in media res, skipping over stuff like how Jackman got this strange condition and even referencing the original works, which would create an interesting narrative. The biggest issues with the first episode is some bad editing and some poor writing, all parts that are amplified by the later episodes until it somehow devolves into a plot about evil clones trying to use Jackman's DNA to make super soldiers and then how the original Mr. Hyde did exist, so there wasn't any stories about it like what we would believe, and how there was no potion that caused Jekyll to exist, it was love for another girl, somehow. Those might be spoilers, but this show is so awful that I don't care spoiling everything about it. It gets 2 stars instead of 1 purely for the chance of the show being good from the first episode.

AdnanZian It's one of the most brilliantly engaging, twisted, hilarious, morbidly fascinating pieces of television writing in ages. "Jekyll", very unlike Steven Moffat, also falls apart a bit at the end. At least, it does if you consider it a stand-alone mini-series. That Moffat has written a second series of the show does not matter if it never appears on our television screens, and it appears from interviews and such that Moffat regards the second series as a 'sequel' to this, which suggests this should be able to stand alone. And it does, for the most part. The final episode, however, solves most of the questions and gives satisfying answers to the questions so brilliantly posed by Mr. Moffat during the first five episodes... then goes and throws in a few new questions, including one huge mystery posed by the epilogue of the series, one which causes the answers which previously made sense to be questioned, and yet is worked so intricately into the fabric of the elaborate plot Moffat lays out that it is impossible to ignore or dismiss as a cheap sensationalist shock moment. It would be an effective teaser for an upcoming series if the upcoming series were anything approaching a certainty, but since this was, to some extent, supposed to stand alone it is a tragically poor ending, beyond the initial jolt of the moment.There is so much going on in "Jekyll" psychologically, so much going on in the writing, layers of meaning and layers of narrative devices being used at all times, that one could write a dissertation in many different fields in Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences on just six episodes of television. That is impressive, but almost not as impressive as Moffat taking a literary classic with huge popularity and truly making something that is almost entirely his own from it. This is not an 'adaptation', this is pretty much an original script with characters (and not even really that) and a central plot (and not really even that) we're familiar with. It is originality in a field of unoriginality, and proves with great finality that modern-day adaptations don't have to be dull. There's no point in even comparing this to Stevenson, whose story had different concerns and a different ideology. Jekyll and Hyde here serve as the basis of a different (and much more modern) exploration of duality than in Stevenson's novel.With his "Doctor Who" episodes and with later series of "Coupling", Moffat displayed a knack for being clever with structure and with story. His scripts have always worn their complexity on their sleeves, which is great when the thing works organically and completely. "Jekyll" is five episodes of absolutely some of the most dazzling, brilliant storytelling ever on television, and one of the most unique takes on a literary classic I can think of, then... Maybe, just maybe, Moffat tried to be too clever and lost the thread a bit. There are several plot issues, but let's not bother with those. Hopefully we will see what Moffat had in mind for the second series in some form. If left unproduced, perhaps the scripts will somehow find their way online. As it stands right now, "Jekyll" is 97% of an astonishing television classic, and that 3% is a lot harder to ignore than you'd think.

dromasca 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' is the kind of eternal horror story that fits well for any number of remakes. Its depiction of the dark aspects of the human character has not only the elements of mystery for a suspense story but also deeper insights that can be exploited on the artistic and psychological story side. Script-writers and directors doing a J&H story can find the premises of entertainment and art and pick the right dose.This BBC mini-series is taking an approach that is mixing science fiction and conspiracy theory. It does build well with the principal characters in evolution from one episode to another. The strong and surprising character is dr. Jackman's (Jekyll and Hyde character name in the movie) wife who is growing from the apparently supporting role at the start of the series to the key character saving the day in the final episodes. Gina Bellman is exquisite in this role, while James Nesbitt's Jackman seems to feel better in the positive role, while grimacing in a slightly non-convincing manner on the dark side of the character.Where the series fail is in developing a story that has logic and clarity. We never get a good understanding of what this huge organization watching on the Jekyll/Hyde descendants is really after - yes, we know the government conspiracies are evil, but this is not really enough. The final explanation is confusing, and I could not figure out why and how the two souls/one body Jekyll survives, although we have all seen one body dying eventually and convincingly (if it was a clone body that died, this was not clear either). A few side characters (the psychiatric nurse, the two female detectives) are side-lined after the first two series and their presence on screen in the last four ones is not needed and justified. The mysterious a la Lynch character of the mother is interesting but does not really fit in the logic of the story.Despite the two many holes the story builds and lives well through the six episodes, and there is enough good stuff in the mix to make it worth watching.

Lily Ross A new, fresh take on the same old Jekyll/ Hyde theme which has so captured fans of literature and all other kinds of popular culture since its inception in the C19th.Stephen Moffat is known well as the writer on Doctor Who (soon to replace Russell T. Davies) and as such one can see how he can make material like this work so well. The main theme of good vs evil - captured with genius by Stevenson in the original story as the dichotomy in one individual man - is a great, meaty topic to dig into and Moffat certainly does. There are brilliantly written moments of drama, comedy and sheer horror, all well constructed and the plotting is perfect. The way the series is shot too is quite stylish, capturing the darkness of Hyde, and accentuating the pacy tension-building story.However, despite a great start, this series does not end quite as well as it begins. It turns from a tense, stomach churning thriller into a 'Run!' style action/horror story. That said, it does not detract from a brilliantly written and acted, fresh drama.Perhaps the best thing about it is James Nesbitt in the dual role of Jackman and Hyde. He both perfectly captures the exasperated, desperate family man of Jackman and relishes the delectable evil of Hyde. This performance not only holds the whole story together, but brings it into spectacular Technicolour.If you want to watch an exciting, well-written, and well-made drama, with a punchy script, fast pace and great performances, then this is for you.