The Unfair Fate of 'Mary Reilly': When Critics Miss the Mark
There’s something profoundly unsettling about how quickly the film industry—and its critics—can turn on a movie. It’s as if the moment a project is labeled a ‘flop,’ it’s doomed to be dissected, dismissed, and forgotten. But what happens when a film, despite its flaws, has more to offer than its reputation suggests? This is the story of Mary Reilly, a 1996 horror-drama starring Julia Roberts, and the rare critic who saw its worth when others didn’t.
The Pack Mentality of Critics
Let’s start with a truth that’s as old as cinema itself: critics can be ruthless. Personally, I think there’s a herd mentality at play here. Once a narrative takes hold—whether it’s about budget overruns, production troubles, or a star’s vanity project—it’s hard to shake. Take Heaven’s Gate or Ishtar; both were savaged by critics who seemed more interested in the behind-the-scenes drama than the films themselves. What many people don’t realize is that this pack mentality often blinds us to the actual merits of a movie.
Mary Reilly fell victim to this phenomenon. With Julia Roberts at its center and a troubled production history, it was an easy target. But here’s the thing: the film wasn’t just another Hollywood disaster. It was a quiet, atmospheric retelling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from a unique perspective—that of the maid, Mary Reilly. From my perspective, this alone made it worth watching. Yet, most critics were too busy sharpening their knives to notice.
Roger Ebert’s Uncommon Insight
One thing that immediately stands out is Roger Ebert’s review of Mary Reilly. While others were quick to dismiss it, Ebert saw something deeper. He praised the film’s gloomy atmosphere, its faithfulness to the spirit of Robert Louis Stevenson’s original story, and its focus on the psychological horror rather than cheap thrills. In his words, it was ‘a dark, sad, frightening, gloomy story’—and that was a compliment.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how Ebert’s take contrasts with the general reception. Most critics zeroed in on Julia Roberts’ accent, which, let’s be honest, wasn’t her finest moment. But Ebert looked beyond that. He recognized the film’s attempt to explore the duality of human nature through the lens of a powerless woman. If you take a step back and think about it, this was a bold choice in 1996, long before such nuanced storytelling became the norm.
The Misunderstood Appeal of Mary Reilly
Here’s where I think the film’s true value lies: it’s not a traditional horror movie, nor is it a straightforward drama. It’s a hybrid, blending elements of both genres to create something uniquely unsettling. The relationship between Mary and Dr. Jekyll (John Malkovich) is fraught with tension, sympathy, and revulsion. What this really suggests is that horror doesn’t always need jump scares or gore to be effective. Sometimes, it’s the quiet moments—the creeping dread, the unspoken fears—that linger long after the credits roll.
A detail that I find especially interesting is how the film’s failure at the box office and with critics has overshadowed its artistic ambition. It’s easy to write off a movie as a flop, but what does that label really mean? Does it mean the film has nothing to offer? Or does it mean it didn’t meet the expectations of a fickle industry? Personally, I think Mary Reilly is a prime example of a film that was ahead of its time—a movie that deserved more than it got.
The Broader Lesson for Critics and Audiences
This raises a deeper question: how often do we let preconceptions cloud our judgment? Critics are not immune to bias, and neither are audiences. When a film is labeled a flop, it’s rare for people to approach it with an open mind. But as Ebert’s review reminds us, there’s value in engaging with a film on its own terms.
From my perspective, this isn’t just about Mary Reilly. It’s about the way we consume and critique art. Are we too quick to dismiss something because it doesn’t fit neatly into our expectations? Or can we learn to appreciate the nuances, the flaws, and the ambitions that make a piece of work unique?
Final Thoughts
Mary Reilly may not be a perfect film, but it’s far from the disaster it’s often made out to be. It’s a moody, thought-provoking take on a classic story, and it deserves to be remembered for more than its failures. What many people don’t realize is that films like this—the ones that challenge conventions and take risks—are often the ones that stand the test of time.
So, the next time you hear a movie being written off as a flop, I encourage you to think twice. There might be more to it than meets the eye. After all, as Roger Ebert showed us, sometimes the most rewarding films are the ones that everyone else has overlooked.
