The Unfair Fate of 'Mary Reilly': When Critics Miss the Mark
There’s something deeply unsettling about how quickly the film industry—and its critics—can turn on a movie. It’s like watching a mob form around a piñata, blindfolded and swinging wildly, without ever bothering to see what’s inside. Mary Reilly, Stephen Frears’ 1996 gothic horror film starring Julia Roberts, is a perfect case study in this phenomenon. Personally, I think it’s a film that deserved far better than the critical drubbing it received. What makes this particularly fascinating is how Roger Ebert, one of cinema’s most astute voices, saw something in it that others missed entirely.
The Pack Mentality of Critics
Let’s start with the elephant in the room: film criticism can be brutal, and it often succumbs to groupthink. From my perspective, this is especially true when a movie is surrounded by negative buzz before its release. Mary Reilly was no exception. The film was bumped from awards season to a February release—a move that, in Hollywood, is essentially code for ‘we’ve given up on this one.’ Critics, already primed by rumors of production troubles and Julia Roberts’ questionable accent, seemed to have their knives sharpened before they even stepped into the theater.
But here’s the thing: what many people don’t realize is that this pack mentality often blinds critics to a film’s merits. It’s like they’re so focused on the target that they forget to look at the bigger picture. Mary Reilly wasn’t a perfect film, but it was far from the disaster it was made out to be. If you take a step back and think about it, the film’s quiet, atmospheric approach to horror was a refreshing departure from the genre’s usual reliance on jump scares and special effects.
Ebert’s Insight: Beyond the Surface
Roger Ebert’s review of Mary Reilly stands out like a beacon in a sea of negativity. He didn’t just see a film with a dodgy accent and a February release date—he saw a thoughtful retelling of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that prioritized mood and character over spectacle. In my opinion, Ebert’s ability to engage with the film on its own terms is what made him such a great critic.
One thing that immediately stands out is Ebert’s appreciation for the film’s gothic atmosphere. He described it as ‘dark, sad, frightening, and gloomy,’ and I couldn’t agree more. What this really suggests is that Mary Reilly wasn’t trying to be a conventional horror film. Instead, it was exploring the psychological horror of a powerless woman caught in the orbit of a man torn between good and evil. A detail that I find especially interesting is how Ebert praised the film for staying true to the spirit of Robert Louis Stevenson’s original story, rather than reducing it to a monster movie.
Julia Roberts: Misunderstood or Miscast?
Julia Roberts’ performance in Mary Reilly has been the subject of much debate. Many critics dismissed her as miscast, focusing on her accent rather than her portrayal of Mary’s inner turmoil. Personally, I think this is a classic example of critics missing the forest for the trees. Yes, the accent was distracting at times, but Roberts still managed to capture Mary’s vulnerability and quiet strength.
What many people don’t realize is that Mary Reilly isn’t supposed to be a larger-than-life character. She’s a maid, a woman on the fringes of society, and her story is one of quiet resilience. Roberts’ performance, aided by Stephen Frears’ direction and Christopher Hampton’s script, brought that to life in a way that was both subtle and compelling. If you take a step back and think about it, the fact that critics focused so heavily on her accent says more about their expectations than it does about her performance.
The Broader Implications: When Critics Get It Wrong
The critical failure of Mary Reilly raises a deeper question: how often do we let preconceived notions cloud our judgment? In the case of this film, the negative buzz surrounding its production and release date seemed to taint reviewers’ perceptions before they even saw it. This isn’t just a problem for Mary Reilly—it’s a broader issue in film criticism.
From my perspective, this is why Ebert’s review is so important. He reminded us that a film should be judged on its own merits, not on the circumstances surrounding its release. What this really suggests is that critics need to be more mindful of their biases. After all, a film’s worth isn’t determined by its box office numbers or its production troubles—it’s determined by what it achieves on screen.
A Thoughtful Takeaway
As I reflect on Mary Reilly and its place in cinematic history, I’m struck by how much it has to offer. It’s a film that rewards patience and attention, a rare gem in a genre often dominated by spectacle. Personally, I think it’s a shame that it’s remembered more for its failure than for its ambition.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned from revisiting this film, it’s the importance of approaching art with an open mind. Critics, myself included, have a responsibility to look beyond the surface and engage with what’s truly there. Mary Reilly may not be a perfect film, but it’s one that deserves to be seen and appreciated for what it is: a thoughtful, atmospheric exploration of horror and humanity. And for that, it’s worth far more than the critical drubbing it received.
