Jekyll et Hyde

In August 1884 London, the respected Dr. Henry Jekyll (Michael Caine) experiments with a potion that turns him into the monstrous Mr. Hyde. The Hyde part is not such a nice character, though, raping, murdering and breaking stuff if it comes into his path.

Reviews tend to be less than favorable for this film, with Mike Mayo calling it "tepid" and saying that it "never really gets to the heart of the matter." He even blasts the special effects, saying that "the Hyde makeup looks like a lumpy onion with a bad attitude." I accept that the Hyde character is a bit too unhuman, but Mayo mistakes what "the heart of the matter" is.

The story is not centrally concerned with Jekyll or Hyde, but rather the world of technology and science against religion and Victorian values. There is a constant social commentary that the world moves forward and science replaces ignorance, as men increasingly become like gods. Whether this message is right or not is beside the point: it is the argument Jekyll makes to his class against his father-in-law.

I love Michael Caine and everything that he does, but it is Edward Snape, the snooping news reporter, that is by far the most interesting character in this television film.

I thought the film was fun and quite good, regardless of the naysayers. If a version existed with audio commentary or some further insight into the film's background, that would be wonderful. But as it stands, it's a fine film, and a very welcome version of the Jekyll and Hyde story.

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.

At least, that's my opinion. I loved Michael Caine's performance as the tormented Dr. Jekyll, who was really trying to do some good with his experiment but ended up destroying himself and others along the way. This version made him more human, a man grieving the loss of his wife, whom he tried to save, and being accused of causing her death by his heartbroken (as well as vindictive) father-in-law (Joss Ackland, who played the judgmental Victorian gentleman to perfection). As if that's not enough on his plate, he falls for his married sister-in-law (Cheryl Ladd, who does a good job in her role of a sweet but strong Victorian lady, ready to break the chains of propriety for the man she loves) and puts both her social standing and her life in danger.

His transformation into Hyde is shown with more detail than usual, as well as with more of a scientific background, and there are exciting chases, attempts by the police to solve the mystery of this man Hyde wreaking havoc in London, and a heartbreaking plea from Jekyll to his now sympathetic father-in-law for help, to be told that now only god can help him, where Jekyll cries, "THEN WHY DOESN'T HE????"

There's also quite an ending to this movie, that leaves you wondering if the menace is indeed over???

Put this on top of the "check it out" list.

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.

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.