O Médico e o Monstro

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.

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

Set in London where Dr Henry Jekyll : Michael Caine is experimenting with potions and other scientific means to get his twisted purports . Along the way , he gets into trouble with his father-in-law : Joss Ackland and falls in love for his his sister-in-law : Cheyl Ladd . As the good Doctor turning himself into Hyde who lures women, prostitutes to their death through an East End in panic.

It is an acceptable Jekyll entry but rarely rises above the routine , despite the important efforts of Michael Caine . It is a sotisphicated variation on Robert Louis Stevenson's novel made for television and in budget enough . The classic story and known tale about a Doctor pitting everyone against each other , has been partially modified , and , packing an evocative production design, adequate costumes and colorful cinematography . The cast is pretty good giving decent interpretation. Michael is pretty fine , as always, he's well accompanied by various attractive charactes , being well-fitted to their roles , such as : Cheryl Ladd as his lover , Joss Ackland as father-in law , Ronald Pickup, Kim Thomson , Kevin McNally as cop Sergeant , Lionel Jeffries as his father , Lee Montague as inspector , David Schofield as a reporter , among others . The motion picture was professionally directed by David Wickes who also made in similar style : Jack the Ripper with Michael Caine and Frankenstein with Patrick Bergin .

Other versions about this classy story are the following ones : Silent rendition 1920 with John Barrymore . Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1931 by Rouben Mamoulian with Fredric March, Míriam Hopkins . Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde 1941 by Victor Fleming with Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman, Lana Turner , Donald Crisp. The two faces of Dr Jekyll by Terence Fisher with Paul Massie , Dawn Addams, Christopher Lee . Dr Jeyll 1968 with Jack Palance, Oscar Homolka , Denholm Elliott . Dr Jekyll and his sister Mrs Hyde 1971 by Roy Ward Baker with Ralph Bates ,Martine Beswick , Lewis Fiander . Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by David Winters with Kirk Douglas , Donald Pleasence , Susan George ,Michael Redgrave . Dr Jekyll and Mrs Hyde 1995 by David F Price with Sean Young , Tim Daly , Lysette Anthony . Dr Jekyll 1999 by Colin Budds with Adam Baldwin, among others.

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.