ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,1/10
1,6 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueIn 19th century London, a sex maniac sneaks into the engagement party of Dr. Henry Jekyll and Miss Fanny Osbourne, turning the event into a nightmarish whirlpool of murder and debauchery.In 19th century London, a sex maniac sneaks into the engagement party of Dr. Henry Jekyll and Miss Fanny Osbourne, turning the event into a nightmarish whirlpool of murder and debauchery.In 19th century London, a sex maniac sneaks into the engagement party of Dr. Henry Jekyll and Miss Fanny Osbourne, turning the event into a nightmarish whirlpool of murder and debauchery.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Prix
- 1 victoire au total
Louis Colla
- Mr. Maw
- (as Louis Michel Colla)
Michel Lévy
- Poole the manservant
- (uncredited)
Avis en vedette
10info-108
Doctor Jekyll is a rather different version than most adaptations of the Jekyll & Hide story. Its emphasis lies on sex, this time. Jekyll changes into a rather beastly kind of lover/murderer who seduces, haunts and kills all the people gathered in the house for a party. Although the story is well known, this change of direction makes it very interesting to watch. The photography is rather special, with light almost bursting of the screen. The only negative thing I found was the English dubbing which is done very badly. Try to find the original version if you can. Udo Kier and Patrick Magee are very amusing to watch.
I liked this movie, it's a cinematic paradox, it kept my attention and i couldn't take my eyes off it. Just like watching a car accident as you pass the accident scene, you know it's not gonna be pretty, you know the things you'll see might haunt you but you still watch. I can't say it's exactly like that, i mean, it's not that unbearable to watch, there is a dark comedy relief here and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. But still, this is sick and twisted and perverse.
Edward Hyde's Freudian "id" (the primitive, basic, and fully unconscious part of personality) is here more obvious than ever. This movie took it to the extreme, however it captures perfectly its essence. Did it need to be that graphic ? I don't know for sure. In any case, there is zero eroticism here. You can call this movie raw, graphic, sick, even cerebral. But not erotic.
Proceed at your own risk. I'd be a liar though if i say i didn't like it.
Edward Hyde's Freudian "id" (the primitive, basic, and fully unconscious part of personality) is here more obvious than ever. This movie took it to the extreme, however it captures perfectly its essence. Did it need to be that graphic ? I don't know for sure. In any case, there is zero eroticism here. You can call this movie raw, graphic, sick, even cerebral. But not erotic.
Proceed at your own risk. I'd be a liar though if i say i didn't like it.
I can't believe I had never seen this film before but it would seem so unless I saw some heavily cut version on video, because this viewing was a revelation. Much helped by the musical score and varied conditions of light so loved of the director, this is unworldly from the start, despite its seeming drawing and dining room settings. Things go wrong (or is that rather, right?) from the very beginning as we get the impression of something ghastly going on and the film does not pause, indeed it gathers momentum all the time. As if we too are on the same drug, our perception and involvement changes as we begin to see the transformation of Jekyll through the eyes of his fascinated fiancé. Truly transgressive, this is a magnificent portrayal of repressed desires and the beast within and such is the level of joyous destruction and killing that I shall have to include it in my 'Sadean' list.
It took me a while to find this one, but I finally did. I was dying to see it (because Udo Kier is in it), but I was totally disappointed.
As you may know, it is a Jekyll Hyde plot. Udo plays Dr. Jekyll, and some totally ugly guy plays Mr. Hyde. I agree with the other person who commented, it's much like a disturbing nightmare. Like a dream. The colors in parts are sort of like and Argento film. And it is really bad that it's cut to pieces. I mean, everything half gory must have been cut out.
The movie is dubbed (cutting out Udo's great voice), and he has a really lame hair-do! I just had to tell y'all fellow Udo fans. It's not really worth tracking down, like I did. I give it - 4/10
As you may know, it is a Jekyll Hyde plot. Udo plays Dr. Jekyll, and some totally ugly guy plays Mr. Hyde. I agree with the other person who commented, it's much like a disturbing nightmare. Like a dream. The colors in parts are sort of like and Argento film. And it is really bad that it's cut to pieces. I mean, everything half gory must have been cut out.
The movie is dubbed (cutting out Udo's great voice), and he has a really lame hair-do! I just had to tell y'all fellow Udo fans. It's not really worth tracking down, like I did. I give it - 4/10
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne (1981)
** (out of 4)
Walerian Borowczyk's wild, over-the-top sexual fever nightmare has Dr. Jekyll (Udo Kier) and Miss Osbourne (Marina Pierro) having an engagement party but soon the entire thing leads to a disaster when a sexual predator shows up.
THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MISS OSBOURNE isn't the first version of the Jekyll and Hyde story to feature a sexual slant. This film is something that many consider a masterpiece but I'm not going to share that much praise. It's becoming rather clear that I respect Borowczyk a lot more than I actually enjoy his films. This movie here is very slow moving but it's beautiful to look at. It doesn't have anything we haven't seen before yet it has moments that are strong enough to hold your attention.
The biggest issue with this film is the fact that I simply see it as a fake. Porn, art and horror can go together and several directors have done it. Jess Franco and Jean Rollin immediately come to mind and I think both of them didn't try to hide behind any one genre and they would just jump into the material and go for it. I'm not sure why but it always seemed to me that Borowczyk didn't ever go in full steam. I mean, both this film and THE BEAST took familiar stories, added a touch of sex but I wouldn't say either went to the extreme of what they could have.
We basically have a rapist running around the party and, like in THE BEAST, we see an erect penis. Was this meant to be shocking? I guess for some it would have been but to me it was just a silly sequence and nothing that happened was all that shocking. It was well-made and there's no question that the film has a surreal atmosphere and a beautiful image but on the whole there's very little story and it's overly boring. Both Kier and Pierro are good as are the supporting players including Howard Vernon.
** (out of 4)
Walerian Borowczyk's wild, over-the-top sexual fever nightmare has Dr. Jekyll (Udo Kier) and Miss Osbourne (Marina Pierro) having an engagement party but soon the entire thing leads to a disaster when a sexual predator shows up.
THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MISS OSBOURNE isn't the first version of the Jekyll and Hyde story to feature a sexual slant. This film is something that many consider a masterpiece but I'm not going to share that much praise. It's becoming rather clear that I respect Borowczyk a lot more than I actually enjoy his films. This movie here is very slow moving but it's beautiful to look at. It doesn't have anything we haven't seen before yet it has moments that are strong enough to hold your attention.
The biggest issue with this film is the fact that I simply see it as a fake. Porn, art and horror can go together and several directors have done it. Jess Franco and Jean Rollin immediately come to mind and I think both of them didn't try to hide behind any one genre and they would just jump into the material and go for it. I'm not sure why but it always seemed to me that Borowczyk didn't ever go in full steam. I mean, both this film and THE BEAST took familiar stories, added a touch of sex but I wouldn't say either went to the extreme of what they could have.
We basically have a rapist running around the party and, like in THE BEAST, we see an erect penis. Was this meant to be shocking? I guess for some it would have been but to me it was just a silly sequence and nothing that happened was all that shocking. It was well-made and there's no question that the film has a surreal atmosphere and a beautiful image but on the whole there's very little story and it's overly boring. Both Kier and Pierro are good as are the supporting players including Howard Vernon.
Le saviez-vous
- Anecdotes"Fanny Osbourne" was the name of Robert Louis Stevenson's real life fiancée, who was so shocked by his original draft of "The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde" that Stevenson threw the manuscript into the fire and wrote a completely different story.
- Autres versionsA UK video release entitled Bloodbath of Dr Jekyll cuts from the opening murder of the little girl to the aftermath of Mr Hyde's later attack on the dancer, deleting some 26 minutes of footage inbetween.
- ConnexionsFeatured in Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne: An Interview with Marina Pierro (2015)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Miss Osbourne
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
- Durée1 heure 31 minutes
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant