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.

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.

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.

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.

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.