Jekyll und Hyde

I don't know how many versions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde they've made, or how many you've seen, but I'd never seen it before I watched the Michael Caine version. I didn't even know it was going to be a horror movie, so I was in for quite a surprise!

Besides the blackouts that signal an impending commercial break, there's no other indication that this was a television movie. The acting is very good and the production values and costumes are beautiful. Immediately at the opening credits, you're immersed in the world of 1800s England. Michael Caine plays the respected Dr. Jekyll, and when he saves the life of a little girl, you're sure of two things: he's the good guy in the story, and he'll be cast as the iconic Dr. Larch nine years later in The Cider House Rules. Michael is ostracized from his father-in-law, Joss Ackland, who believes his experimentation in alternative medicine killed his daughter, and to make matters even more complicated, he's falling in love with his sister-in-law Cheryl Ladd!

Where does the scary part come in, you ask? Well, you'll have to watch the movie—or already know the very famous Robert Louis Stevenson story—to find out. Definitely put the kids to bed before watching this version, though, because it's pretty spooky. Depending on how much you love him, it can be tough to watch Michael Caine in those scenes, but just keep telling yourself it's a movie and not real life—and then watch Hannah and Her Sisters afterwards. Cheryl Ladd is incredibly beautiful, and she and the other ladies in the film get to wear absolutely gorgeous gowns, designed by Raymond Hughes. There's also a pretty strong supporting cast, which is always a nice surprise in a TV movie, including David Schofield as the slimy reporter, Miriam Karlin as the corrupt brothel owner, and Frank Barrie as the handsome butler.

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, since it's a horror movie, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Now, it's not really that this has absolutely nothing to offer... it's really more that it takes an idea with such massive promise, and not only fails to deliver, but actually ruins parts, adds and changes without doing anything, at least positive. I have not read the original by Stevenson, but I am not certain anyone working on this did, either. There's marvelous conflict in the very idea of the character, and this barely manages to realize that at all. The look of Hyde is just bad, and the design of the transformation, the concept used, seems dumb. Much is unintentionally silly(as the other reviewer comments, this would have been good for Mystery Science Theater 3000). I've seen excellent films using non-linear time-lines, but this plays around with time so much, and for so little point(some setting up the final twist, which could have been considerably better, as with the rest of them)... the plot has enough threads, with little to nothing, most notably *not* the main subject of the character(I did notice that the credits said "derived from", not "based on", when listing the book), actually resolved or properly addressed. It also has too many things going, at the same time. The dialog has select moments that are noteworthy, with the rest, the very most part, being utterly preposterous. The acting is seldom commendable, save for Caine, and even he has weak instances. Effects tend to be poor. Ladd's character and what she brings to the story is worse than useless, it hurts the movie. Music is unimpressive, and portions are far too loud. Attempts at comedy are ironically the least funny bits in the film. A lot of things happen without this ever engaging or interesting the(or at least this) viewer. Editing and cinematography cut corners and has so little to offer, you have to wonder why they bothered to make any effort at all. This may also feature the least helpful/discreet(in unexpected situations, at least) servants I've ever seen, even if they do(at times) seem to have good intentions. I recommend this to... well, those people who just *must* watch every adaptation and/or Michael Caine feature out there. The rest of us, please remember that just because it's TV, it doesn't have to mean it's bad; this is outdone even by productions in the same(financial and whatnot) class. 5/10

My favorite Jekyll & Hyde adaptation is--wait for it--Jerry Lewis in the "Nutty Professor" (1963). You think I'm kidding.

Second place goes to this 1990 production with Michael Caine, Cheryl Ladd & Joss Ackland. It's the acting, particularly in the 2nd half, that makes this such a treat to watch. Of course Caine is at the top of his game as usual. Repression & passion come through in full force, particularly in the explosive scene when he confronts his antagonist (Ackland). "Help me!" "Only God can help you now." "Then why doesn't he?!"

The story is simple (if I recall correclty from high school, the original Robert Louis Stevenson tale is only about 45 pages). Despite the many extravagant adaptations, the original story is quite tame on the surface, and this adaptation stays true to that spirit. Don't expect a lot of gore, mass killings and heart-pumping action because that was never the intent. Personally I think this approach works perfectly with violence kept to a minimum because it makes those few violent scenes much more disturbing when they happen.

A romantic angle was added with the character played by Cheryl Ladd (who shows off her acting talents as well as a decent Victorian accent). And although I'm usually cynical toward writers inserting romantic angles, this worked seamlessly. The climax wouldn't have been half as effective without Ladd's stellar performance. The antagonist played by Joss Ackland (whose sinister snarl you may remember from his racist, murdering character in Lethal Weapon 2, released the year before this) adds another welcome dimension. Ackland represents the antithesis to Caine's progressive views, a sort of dark, subversive demon who drags Caine down at every opportunity. Caine completes the triad with his portrayal of a man deeply & secretly tormented. He comes off with just the proper amount of scientific arrogance, kind-hearted humanity, and charming sophistication to make you love him instantly and connect with his pain.

The "4th lead role", Caine's acting as Hyde, is so menacing I thought it had to be a different actor. But no, it's still Michael Caine. The makeup & special effects are straightforward and "analog" (in other words, no big budget computer animation), but that makes the transformation even more intimate & personal. Thus it's even more disturbing when you realize what Hyde is capable of. It's never explicitly shown, but the implication is undeniable: he is a rapist. So yes, by visual standards, this film is tame. But if you read between the lines, it will disturb you to your very core.

Bear in mind, this was a late 80s TV production, so you'll have to forgive the usual TV shortcomings, like slightly overglossed presentation and a musical score which I felt upstaged the dramatic performances at times (I'm a big fan of the orchestra shutting up when a dramatic line is being spoken). But really these are minor nitpicks. It may take you 15 or 20 mins to sink into the movie, but once you do, it's a great ride picking up speed all the way to its colossal ending (which I believe is quite different from the original story, so don't miss it).

A final note about the DVD released in 2002 by Platinum Disc. While it seems to be a transfer from video, it's one of the better video transfers I've seen, crisp & vivid without much blurring. No subtitles or special features, though. If this film were ever to be remastered for Blu-ray I'd definitely pick it up. But until then, the DVD is definitely worth the 5 bucks.

Well, after not having watched this movie in about 20 years, I finally did again. The original story has always been my favorite by far. I read it first time when I was 7 years old, and have read and watched just about every adaptation since. While this thing takes some artistic liberties, when it comes to the plot and story, it works very well. It's not however flawless. While I'm a huge Caine fan, this is one of the times where he's overdoing it, big time! Besides that, the addition to the plot, actually makes the characters rather 2D, it lacks character development, even when it comes to Hyde. There's very little info about Jekyll's experiments and research, which is also a shame. It's very worth watching, but don't expect a classic masterpiece like the '1931 adaptation. It is however way better than any of the other adaptations, especially to two horrendous 2006 and 1941 adaptations.

Not to discount the work it takes to translate prose novels to the screen, but in the decades since the advent of motion pictures there have been so many adaptations of the tale of Jekyll and Hyde that I have to imagine it would be hard to screw up another. Let there be no doubt that David Wickes' 1990 rendition for television, with the esteemed Michael Caine, is unquestionably well written and made, and the only real question on hand is the minutiae of choices made along the way. In this iteration we get a little more body horror than in some others; there's accentuation of the war of words between Jekyll, with his new ideas of science, and the old guard, with personal matters further fanning the flames. To the latter point, this version also rather latches onto the word on the street, and the impressions of additional figures on the course of events. The reveal to supporting characters of the dual identity of Jekyll and Hyde comes unexpectedly early - preceding the third act - allowing the last portion to zero in on the heartfelt drama of Jekyll's plight, and of the lingering interpersonal issues, before the inevitable dark turn and build to the climax.

How much one favors this 'Jekyll and Hyde' over other adaptions comes down entirely to personal preference. I don't think this one is a total must-see, nor necessarily the premier example, but it's completely solid and compelling - even as it arguably deemphasizes the genre flavors to a slight degree, moving them to smaller corners, and plays up the drama of the scenario. All along the way the contributions of cast and crew alike are reliably outstanding. The filming locations, sets, costume design, hair, and makeup could not be sharper or lovelier in bringing the period setting to bear; like John Cameron's score, Wickes' direction works always to maximize the effect of every beat, whether the mood be one of violence, desperation, and horror, or of love, heartbreak, and tragedy. The cast is a treasure, with Caine of course leading the way in a relatively infrequent role in a genre piece; as one would expect he very adeptly embodies both the charm and candor of Jekyll, and the uncontrolled rage of Hyde. Among others, though, I'm also earnestly impressed with Cheryl Ladd, who even in a supporting part threatens to upstage Caine as love interest Sara.

I don't agree with every choice made, for example the especially exaggerated makeup of Mrs. Hackett or Lucy. (Although, far be it from me to judge; maybe the historians in the audience will say their appearance is accurate for the period.) Yet by and large this film is fantastic, ably evoking real feelings in response to Jekyll's growing anguish. There is ultimately only one concrete criticism that I would offer, and it is is that the very last shot in the length is a gauche, ill-considered step too far. In contrast to the nuance with which Wickes commanded the production all along, the last seconds are so tawdrily heavy-handed that they diminish to some slight degree the esteem in which I had otherwise been holding the viewing experience. It would have been a flaw that was very easy to adjust, without truly changing the import of the ending. Still, setting this unfortunate bit aside, far more than not I'm very pleased with just how enjoyable and satisfying this TV movie is, and whether one is specifically a fan of those involved or just looking for something good to watch there's not really any going wrong here. Even compared to other adaptations of Robert Louis Stevenson this won't necessarily meet with equal favor for all, but I had a good time watching, and I think most other folks would, too. Don't go out of your way for it, but if you have the chance to check out 1990's 'Jekyll and Hyde' then it's well worthwhile.