Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde

I got my introduction to Seduction Cinema a couple of weeks ago with the decent 'Sin Sisters', and while it was a long way both from being brilliant and from the hardcore pornography I'm used to; it was just about good enough to warrant seeing another. Dr Jekyll and Mistress Hyde is very much along the same lines as Sin Sisters in terms of style and plotting, although as the title suggests; the film takes it's backbone from the Robert Louis Stevenson classic novel 'Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde'. The film puts lesbian sex at its forefront (nothing wrong with that) and probably took about two minutes to write. Stevenson's classic easily lends itself to a sex film, and here we focus on Dr Jackie Stevenson (nice name...), a female scientist that has developed a drug to do...something...to women. After trying it on herself, she develops an alter-ego - except this time the alter ego doesn't turn to murder, it turns to having sex with the sultry Misty Mundae, whom Jackie meets at a bus stop. From there, we follow the bizarre love story to its unexpected final twist.

The film looks like it was shot with a video camera and probably cost just a fistful of dollars to make. The performances are terrible, with the female leads looking great while delivering awful lines of dialogue in a horribly wooden way. This doesn't matter, of course, as the whole point of the film is simply for its male audience members to enjoy themselves, although it doesn't deliver too much on that front either. Like the performances, the sex is wooden and fake looking and while the initial seduction between Misty Mundae and Julian Wells is rather nice, the rest of the film just sort of rolls on. However, despite its many shortcomings - Dr Jekyll and Mistress Hyde is a real fun film to watch. It's all so stupid that you'd have to be completely humourless not to have a laugh at it, and watching the female leads go at each other is nice even though it's not very well done. Mundae and Wells bode extremely well together as they're polar opposites, and it's obvious that director Tony Marsiglia knows that. The ending feels incredibly tacked on; but given all the lacklustre ways they could have ended it, the conclusion isn't too bad. Overall; this film is OK with me.

Rating as a softcore flick: C+

Watching Seduction Cinema flicks are a considerably different experience than most other movies of the softcore genre. They usually have poorer production values, attempt at having a plot that constantly shifts in tone, and feature women who, shall I put it kindly, are usually plain and not all that attractive.

But there are exceptions to that last rule, as I had an immediate crush on Laurie Wallace when I first saw her in The Erotic Witch Project, thus my only reason to seek out the rest of her films under Seduction. This eventually led me to Witchbabe, which had one fairly short scene in it with Julian Wells, but it was enough to make clear that Laurie would have some competition as the hottest chick in Seduction (though, as far as I'm aware, Laurie now works for Torchlight Pictures).

So Dr. Jekyll and Mistress Hyde marks the first movie I've seen with Julian in the lead role, and all things considered, it's not such a bad softcore movie. Sure, most of the other women are unattractive, particularly Ruby Larocca and the overrated Misty Mundae, but almost every scene features Julian in it, enough to carry me through the short 70 or so minutes.

The film actually tries to work as a serious psychological drama and as a titillating skin flick, and this is where the problems mostly lie. When it concentrates on the former, it's mostly a disaster. While the cinematography is surprisingly solid and atmospheric, the acting and script simply aren't good enough to make any of the drama believable. The performances are especially pathetic, with Larocca sounding like she's having difficulty memorizing her lines.

But as a softcore extravaganza, the movie gets just enough right to get a passable recommendation. It is unfortunate, though, that an early masturbation scene with Julian looks as if it boasted a body double in her place, even though such a move makes no sense in this genre. Otherwise, though, I would say the movie is worth watching for those who find Julian Wells an absolute hottie.

I'm not going to lie and say this movie is good for anything for than softcore porn. One of my friends told me that this is not like most softcore flicks, because it actually has a good story. I don't happen to agree one bit. I could spend weeks dismantling this movie aesthetically. I understand it was shot on an extremely low-budget, but even skin flicks usually contain sets that are dressed up to appear like certain locations. The movie opens on a talk show set, and it literally just shows close-ups of the host and interviewee against an anonymous background. They don't even face each other and they're individually framed, not even hiding from the audience the fact that they shot each woman separately. I'm guessing they shot the whole movie with one video camera, because there are moments where you see a woman's body and her face in isolated shots, even though there were no body doubles involved. If there's anything good I can say about the movie aesthetically, it's that the acting is not bad. The actresses are actually fairly convincing.

I once saw Richard Roeper review an erotic foreign film, and he said that, "If I rave about a comedy because it makes me laugh, then I guess this movie makes me feel proud that I'm a man with 20/20 vision." The moral of that statement is that men are often afraid to admit something is erotic and a turn-on to them, with the risk of being called perverts. I'm not afraid to admit that this movie is very erotic, and it succeeds on that level. The first 30-minutes-or-so contains softcore oral sex scenes, which are obviously simulated and something laughable, but the rest of the movie really takes off. And just my good luck, 95 percent of the sex scenes involve girl-on-girl activity. That's right, no men involved. And I can honestly say that I found every actress in the movie attractive, especially the lead actress who looks even more sexy in glasses and a business suit. Unlike many girl-on-girl scenes, the actresses looked like they were really into what they were doing, and not like they're just anticipating reactions from the horny guys in the audience.

My score: 7 (out of 10)

Seduction cinema usually do groaningly awful soft-core spoofs of mainstream movies (Ie. Spiderbabe, play-mate of the Apes, Lord of the G-string, etc.) But this lesbian soft-core about a female Dr. Jekyll coming up with a way to unleash the female libido is played mostly straight (pardon the pun) Not to say that the story is anything but an excuse for the simulated sex, just that it's not jokey. And thats no surprise as Director, Tony Marsiglia tends to distance himself from spoof as well in the better plotted "Sin Sisters". The sex scenes in this one are pretty hot as well. And I hope the girl who plays the maid, gets more famous. if for no other reason that then so can fix those teeth of hers.

The Goods: 6 sex scenes (solo, F/F, bondage, orgy) striptease

Babe of the Movie: Julian Wells is hot

Seduction Cinemas limited edition DVD Extras: an interview with Misty Mundae & Julian Wells (8 minutes); Making of documentary ( nearly 80 minutes?!!?); theatrical trailer; and the usual myriad of Trailers for other Seduction Cinema titles. The second disk is just a music soundtrack CD

My Grade: C+