Jekyll & 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.

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.

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.

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.

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