User reviews

I liked this movie, it's a cinematic paradox, it kept my attention and i couldn't take my eyes off it. Just like watching a car accident as you pass the accident scene, you know it's not gonna be pretty, you know the things you'll see might haunt you but you still watch. I can't say it's exactly like that, i mean, it's not that unbearable to watch, there is a dark comedy relief here and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. But still, this is sick and twisted and perverse.

Edward Hyde's Freudian "id" (the primitive, basic, and fully unconscious part of personality) is here more obvious than ever. This movie took it to the extreme, however it captures perfectly its essence. Did it need to be that graphic ? I don't know for sure. In any case, there is zero eroticism here. You can call this movie raw, graphic, sick, even cerebral. But not erotic.

Proceed at your own risk. I'd be a liar though if i say i didn't like it.

Two nights ago I watched the heavily cut British VTC release on VHS under the title of "Bloodbath of Dr Jekyll". A party is being held at the large London home of Dr Jekyll (Udo Kier) to celebrate his engagement to the beautiful Miss Fanny Osbourne (played by Marina Pierro), a young girl is viciously attacked outside and it soon becomes apparent that a maniac is among the people in attendance. I found it rather kinky in places and it is an unusual but interesting re-telling of the classic story, I also found it heavy on dialogue and rather boring. Last night I watched the restored and uncut version, "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Miss Osbourne", on Blu-ray and it proved to be a far more rewarding experience. This is not a movie for your typical horror movie fan, and like I have already said it is not a traditional Dr Jekyll movie. It is interesting that Kier, who has also played Dracula and Frankenstein in previous films, only plays Jekyll, here they did not go down the usual make-up route, instead Mr Hyde is played by a different actor (Gerard Zalcberg). In uncut form this movie packs in plenty of nudity, sexual perversions and violence, it's strong stuff. The sets and camerawork are superb, visually very nice and the soundtrack is excellent. I do think that it is one of those movies that benefits from a repeated viewing, not a film for everyone but I enjoyed it so much more second time round, though I don't consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece. Notable for being one of Patrick Magee's final roles, he died the following year.

This film is, as the other reviewers said, rather like watching a dream. It is interesting to note the subtle changes this film makes on the usual Jekyll/Hyde movie formula: Udo Kier's Dr. Jekyll is not really a benefactor of humanity, but a man who revels in being able to commit horrendous crimes in the guise of his alter ego - actually moving the story closer to R. L. Stevenson's original idea. He preaches a philosophy of going beyond good and evil through science.

Likewise, Hyde commits actually repellent crimes of rape, child abuse, and sadism - making him closer to the idea of "unchained evil" than the more genteel transgressions of other movie Hydes.

Overall - a memorable, beautiful, shocking, film. Well worth seeing.

A friend gifted me a subscription to the Criterion Collection, and I was able to watch the full unedited version of this film. What an unexpected treat! Udo Keir plays the infamous Dr Jekyll. The plot revolves around a series of brutal rapes/murders that takes place at his mansion where various guests have been assembled to celebrate his engagement to the lovely Miss Fanny Isbourne(Marino Pierro ). Without going into much more detail on the plot, what this film does for Stevenson's novel is to add a level of eroticism and violence that might have been over the top if it had not been so visually captivating. Intentional or not, viewing the film feels more like watching a dream sequence- albeit a quite demented one. There are several instances where the director forces the viewer to watch the action through a narrowly framed window, giving the experience a voyeuristic feel. While not heavy on substance, it does suffer for it. The whole thing works because it provides so many scenes that remain with the viewer long after the credits.

I can't believe I had never seen this film before but it would seem so unless I saw some heavily cut version on video, because this viewing was a revelation. Much helped by the musical score and varied conditions of light so loved of the director, this is unworldly from the start, despite its seeming drawing and dining room settings. Things go wrong (or is that rather, right?) from the very beginning as we get the impression of something ghastly going on and the film does not pause, indeed it gathers momentum all the time. As if we too are on the same drug, our perception and involvement changes as we begin to see the transformation of Jekyll through the eyes of his fascinated fiancé. Truly transgressive, this is a magnificent portrayal of repressed desires and the beast within and such is the level of joyous destruction and killing that I shall have to include it in my 'Sadean' list.

The only other time my path has crossed that of grubby auteur (urghteur?) Walerian Borowczyk was for his infamous 1975 film The Beast. Emerging from the same post-Hays Code generation as Ken Russell and Michael Winner, Borowczyk's censor-baiting specialty was sex. Another art-porn touchstone is Pier Paolo Pasolini, although at least Borowczyk has a detectable sense of humour in pursuit of his exploitation.

The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Miss Osbourne – to give it the director's preferred title after it was renamed Docteur Jekyll et les femmes – is a slasher of the trashiest sort (a trasher?), focusing on the relationship between Jekyll (Udo Kier), Hyde (a devilishly creepy Gerard Zalcberg), and Fanny Osbourne (Marina Pierro). We first meet Jekyll and Osbourne as they are entertaining guests, come to celebrate their engagement. Then, a murder. Another. The bodies start piling up. Suspecting the not-so-good doctor, Fanny discovers her fiancé's secret... and chooses to join him in his experiments in "transcendental science".

A knowing attack on taste and decency is evident from the off: Borowczyk opens with some painterly compositions, exquisitely lit and lusciously diffused, and proceeds to intercut with images of murder and rape. There's an eerie dream-like quality to some of the early setups, aided by some grimy drone music by electronic pioneer Bernard Parmegiani. But nonsensical plotting and poor pacing stalks the shadows, waiting to pounce. And the most notable knife victim is the editing, which frequently fails at the basic task of depicting who's where in relation to whom.

Borowczyk, to his credit, is clearly aware of the preposterousness of his play, wisely employing the likes of Patrick Magee – always good value – to give us a gloriously OTT army general, who at one point shoots the wrong guy and apologises by saying, "This is war... The soldier fires; the good Lord carries the bullets." But it's not enough to defend against the onset of cheap kinkiness, bad acting, worse dialogue, and weirdly tame stabbings. Any surprise? We are talking about the guy who made Emmanuelle 5, here.

Some oddities, it seems, are better off consigned to the past. But if the promise of seeing Udo Kier writhe naked in a bath of beef stock is tempting, be my guest.

Doctor Jekyll is a rather different version than most adaptations of the Jekyll & Hide story. Its emphasis lies on sex, this time. Jekyll changes into a rather beastly kind of lover/murderer who seduces, haunts and kills all the people gathered in the house for a party. Although the story is well known, this change of direction makes it very interesting to watch. The photography is rather special, with light almost bursting of the screen. The only negative thing I found was the English dubbing which is done very badly. Try to find the original version if you can. Udo Kier and Patrick Magee are very amusing to watch.

Udo Kier is the eponymous Dr. Henry Jekyll, whose experiments into transcendentalism turn him into the sex-crazed Mr. Hyde, who proceeds to go on the rampage, no woman or man safe from his 35cm long, 6cm in diameter, pointy-tipped and extremely rigid phallus. Jeckyll's beautiful betrothed, Miss Fanny Osbourne (Marina Pierro), discovers her lover's secret and is forced to take drastic measures to keep her man.

Directed by Walerian Borowczyk, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne is Euro arthouse horror by way of sleazy sexploitation, meaning that it bores and entertains in equal measures. When at its most pretentious, it is an insufferable snooze-fest, but the film proves a whole lot of deviant fun whenever Hyde gets freaky deaky with his massive dong.

First to suffer is a young girl, beaten unconscious in a London street by Hyde wielding Jeckyll's cane. A pretty dancer is next to be attacked, her lady parts torn asunder by Hyde's whopping whanger, her belly perforated from the inside. Charlotte, the lascivious daughter of General William Danvers Carew (Patrick Magee), actually welcomes Hyde's attention, obligingly bending over for some rear-entry action as her father, tied to a chair, watches in horror (he later punishes his wanton girl by whipping her bare ass with a length of rope). Then, proving that he has no particular sexual preference, Hyde rapes a curly-haired man. Borowczyk, not one to shy away from a shocking image, gives us several graphic shots of Hyde's engorged member as he goes about his business, and shows the bloody aftermath of each attack in detail. The film also delivers plenty of gratuitous nudity, with lots of boobs and bush, making the film a real treat for fans of exploitative trash.

Fans of Udo Kier might come away a little disappointed: he isn't really given a lot to do, since his demented alter-ego is played by another actor (Gérard Zalcberg, sporting a really bad haircut). The most memorable performances come from Magee, who looks like he's totally off his rocker (or completely drunk), and Pierro, who impresses for a completely different reason: she's stunning!

'Borowczyk brings to this the same bizarre poetic sensibility which made GOTO, ISLAND OF LOVE (1968) and BLANCHE (1971) such outlandish wonders, but which forced him into working in the margins of the sex-film industry. He takes the traditional elements of the Stevenson story and turns them to his own surreal ends: the good doctor is transformed into a raving beast and then stalks the corridors of a rambling Victorian house; the inhabitants find themselves under siege from within, and the threat is largely sexual. As usual Borowczyk exercises his immaculate, painterly eye for unusual objects and settings and a fetishist's delight in costume (especially shoes). God knows what the raincoat trade makes of it: a film of strange and outrageous beauty which seems to emanate from that place where our fears are also desires.' – Chris Peachment, Time Out Film Guide, 1998.

This succinct but intuitive review introduced me to Walerian Borowczyk's controversial adaptation of the Robert Louis Stevenson novella but it is only now, some five years later, that I finally managed to watch the film for the first time via a dub taken from the out-of-print Belgian VHS released by the 'Hollywood' label, albeit after having had the ignominy of being detained by the local censors for nearly a month due to its 'obscene' content! Even though the VHS tape is entitled THE BLOODBATH OF DR. JEKYLL, the film's opening credits give the title in French which is then subtitled in English as THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MISS OSBOURNE.

DOCTEUR JEKYLL ET LES FEMMES marked the first time I had witnessed Udo Kier in the lead: at times, his curly-haired Dr. Jekyll was visibly reminiscent of a straight Gene Wilder. I had previously only watched Udo Kier doing his cameos in Dario Argento's SUSPIRIA (1977); Rainer Werner Fassbinder's THE THIRD GENERATION (1979); two for Lars von Trier - the 1994 TV-Series THE KINGDOM and BREAKING THE WAVES (1996); Wim Wenders' THE END OF VIOLENCE (1997); Armageddon (Michael Bay, 1998); END OF DAYS (Peter Hyams, 1999); and as producer/art director/costume designer Albin Grau in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE (E. Elias Mehrige, 2000). I'd love to watch him playing Jack The Ripper in Borowczyk's LULU (1980), a remake of one of the finest of all Silent films – G.W. Pabst's PANDORA'S BOX (1928).

Furthermore, DOCTEUR JEKYLL ET LES FEMMES was also the third time Borowczyk had utilized the then twenty-one year old Marina Pierro, after 1977's INTERNO DI UN CONVENTO aka BEHIND CONVENT WALLS (which has just been released on R2 DVD in an English-dubbed version in the UK) and 1979's LES HEROINES DU MAL aka THREE IMMORAL WOMEN, and he would go on to use her twice more in ARS AMANDI aka THE ART OF LOVE (1983) and his own last completed film, CEREMONIE D'AMOUR aka LOVE RITES (1988). Even though she was supposed to have partaken of Jekyll's serum, Borowczyk chose not to tamper with the actress' loveliness by transforming Fanny Osbourne into a wretched-looking creature (with king-sized boobs, perhaps?); the effect the potion had on her was more a liberating one, shedding all her sexual inhibitions and, perhaps more tellingly, severing the repressive ties which had bound her all her life to the hypocritical social mores of the ever-so respectable Victorian society by repeatedly stabbing her mother to death with a knife. In the end, after decimating the entire household, all that is left for them to do is to devour each other in one last tender, bloody, animalistic embrace.

Borowczyk also managed to offer meaty roles to two fine actors who weren't always used sensibly by other film-makers – Patrick Magee and Howard Vernon. Magee's distinctive voice was definitely one of his major assets and proves to be the saving grace in an otherwise poorly-dubbed picture. Although unusually restrained in the earlier part of the film, he gets more and more unhinged (which is the way we love him) as the film goes on and the hunt for the assassin gets underway, culminating in his ecstatic whipping of his bare-bottomed daughter for nonchalantly indulging in some serious love-making with the well-endowed Edward Hyde, as he lies tied to a chair a few paces away from them! Vernon, playing Dr. Lanyon, even gets to examine the dead bodies of the underaged ballerina and a young male guest, who had unceremoniously been subjected to Hyde's 'organ'. Unfortunately, these two particular scenes are often cut due to the graphic nature (both visual and verbal) of the examination.

Borowczyk directs the film in a strange and elliptical style which is characterized by intermittently interweaving, in the earlier parts of the film, unsettling flashforwards to the murders yet to come, thus further disorienting the viewer and ensnaring him in the sick climate which pervades the whole film. Besides writing and directing (for which he won the Best Direction Award at the Catalonian International Film Festival), Borowczyk himself was also responsible for the film's elegant but sinister décor which, confined as it is almost exclusively to the Jekyll household, imbues the proceedings with a highly appropriate feeling of claustrophobia, which not only implies the imminent danger that the guests constantly face from the predatory beast lurking within the premises, but could also reflect the chains of propriety I mentioned earlier and which had a strong hold over the British people in those Victorian times, a theme which was also explored in the classic Mamoulian/March version. The only scene which is set away from the Jekyll mansion is the film's very opening sequence: Hyde's vicious attack on a little girl in a fog-bound alley in the dead of night is a brutally effective scene which plunges the viewer immediately into the narrative and requires that he/she be already familiar with the plot line. I also liked the blackly humorous touch of having Hyde sign the register of congratulatory notices as if he were a regular guest to the party celebrating the engagement of Dr. Henry Jekyll to Miss Fanny Osbourne.

The transformation sequences were quite different from what we were used to in other film versions by virtue of the fact that this time around Dr. Jekyll dissolves his mixture in a bathtub full of water and jumps right into it (rather than by simply drinking the potion). I have my doubts whether it was actually Udo Kier who was stomping around in the Hyde make-up so complete and 'successful' was the transformation, especially the face which bears an uncanny resemblance to a dark-haired Brian Eno! The mythic 'phallus', which was perhaps the direct side effect of the potion (and I daresay intentionally so), does make its presence felt (ouch!) but not in a vulgar or gratuitous way; in fact, we see it in action only twice - on the General's oversexed daughter and, more disturbingly, on the aforementioned male guest – but, for all I know, it wouldn't really have embarrassed much any consummate male porno star!

Apart from the common violent outburts and anarchic characteristics present in earlier film adaptations of the story, Borowczyk's vision of Hyde possesses a few distinctive traits like his penchant for hanging the carcasses of his victims from the ceiling - perhaps as a nod towards Leatherface's antics in Tobe Hooper's THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974), a film which I haven't yet had the opportunity to watch, by the way – but also, more amusingly, his fondness for shooting poisoned arrows (an engagement present from the General, no less) at his victims, including the very same General and his daughter! The latter also brings out another of Borowczyk's thematic attributes - which can also be found in the two other films of his which I have watched so far, BLANCHE (1971) and LA BETE (1975) – which is the eroticising of inanimate objects: in LA BETE, both Lisbeth Hummel (a rose) and Pascale Rivault (the bed-post) made unique use of such items to satisfy their lustful appetites; in DOCTEUR JEKYLL, the General's daughter lovingly caresses a sewing machine as she is being sodomized by Hyde's 'organ'.

I cannot finish off this review of DOCTEUR JEKYLL ET LES FEMMES without mentioning the immeasurable contribution made by (don't laugh) Bernard Parmegiani, whose highly effective minimalist score recurs unnervingly almost throughout the film's entire duration. The print utilized for the VHS transfer was a bit murky and soft on the whole, but this may have been a conscious decision on Borowczyk's part as to how the film should look…or else, it may have been the result of the various screenings that the tape underwent at the hands of those bastards at the local censorship board!

DOCTEUR JEKYLL ET LES FEMMES is the eighth film version I have watched of the famous horror story: the Silent 1920 version starring John Barrymore and directed by John S. Robertson; the magnificent Rouben Mamoulian version which led to Fredric March winning his first Academy Award in 1931; the 1941 Spencer Tracy/Victor Fleming version; the Tom and Jerry Oscar-nominated animated short subject DR. JEKYLL AND MR. MOUSE (Joseph Barbera and William Hanna, 1947); ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (Charles Lamont,1953) with Boris Karloff playing the good doctor; Hammer Films' second stab at the story, DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE (Roy Ward Baker, 1971), which added a gender-bending twist by having Ralph Bates turn into Martine Beswick; and the inevitable Christopher Lee/Peter Cushing take on the material in the form of I, MONSTER (Stephen Weeks, 1971).

Even so, there are still a handful of film versions I'd like to watch, namely the 1913 Silent with King Baggott and directed by Herbert Brenon; Edgar G. Ulmer's DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957) with Gloria Talbot in the title role; Jean Renoir's 1959 French version with Jean-Louis Barrault which goes by the name of LE TESTAMENT DE DR. CORDELIER (it has been released on R2 DVD in France earlier this year but the print utilized sports no English subtitles); Hammer's THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL (Terence Fisher, 1960) with Paul Massie in the title role; and the two TV adaptations – the 1968 Jack Palance/Charles Jarrott version entitled THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, and even the 1973 Kirk Douglas/David Winters adaptation sponsored by NBC and set to an original song score by Lionel Bart!

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Dr Jeckyll And His Women; here's the breakdown of my ratings:

Story: 0.25 Direction: 1.50 Pace: 0.25 Acting: 0.50 Enjoyment: 0.25

TOTAL: 2.75 out of 10.00

Did I watch the right movie? At the time of writing this review, IMDb has Dr Jeckyll And His Women with a 6.1 Rating with 1.1k votes. The movie I just wasted an hour and a half on had the same cast and director, so I deduce it was the same film. However, I cannot, for the life of me, understand the high Rating.

Walerian Borowczyk, who wrote and directed this masterpiece of monotonous drivel, should never pick up a crayon again. His writing skills are dreadful. For his story, he's decided to extend upon the engagement party of Dr Henry Jekyll to Miss Fanny Osbourne. This idea would have been grand had he been able to create and develop engaging, appealing, and credible characters. Even though Robert Louis Stevenson did the bulk of the work with Jekyll, Borowczyk still manages to make the drug-addled and tortured man appear less than two-dimensional. Most of the individuals in his narrative suffer from similar thinness of personality. But that is just the start of the troubles. Once we get around the dining table, he turns the dialogue into precocious nonsense about transcendental medicine. I would be very surprised if your finger isn't tapping the off button at this moment. If I were you, I'd hit it, and hard, because it's only going to get worse. As we progress through the quagmire of crap, we realise Borowczyk has decided that structure and continuity are for the sane - and out the window, they fly. We are then privy to people making themselves hostages in their house. Instead of seeking refuge, they run from room to room while a doddery old general repeatedly fires his pistol at nothing in particular: All the while, screeching out his orders to run and protect yourselves. And it still worsens. The decrepit old soldier hides his daughter in the wardrobe, fearing the molester is in the house. Not only is Mr Hyde in the house, but he appears to manifest from nowhere in the General's quarters. Sadly, the man-at-arms has spent his load and his pistol clicks on empty. As he begs like a true coward, give the man a headdress of white feathers, his daughter comes out of the cupboard, topless and bends over the sowing machine to give Hyde easy access, all the while goading Daddy to look. However, there is one shining sliver of ingenuity in this miserable mess of a story. The way Jekyll transforms into Hyde. It's not by imbibing a potion. No! Jekyll has to bathe in it. I have to admit that though the story is horrendous to the extreme, this idea is excellent. I even liked the idea of Hyde having to take a second drug to resurrect Jekyll, though why the madman should is beyond me, as both the personalities get their rocks off being Hyde.

Now the strange thing about this whole mess of a picture is Borowczyk's filmmaking. It is quite superb. He has a fine eye for composition and a delicate touch for using natural lighting. Regrettably, the scenes are not riveting enough. Though superbly captured, there is little of interest happening. And the majority of the picture is shot in a standard fashion with lots of camera shake, which looks accidental - making the direction less powerful. His main downfall is the tempo. For some unknown reason, he appoints to tell the tale at the slowest pace possible. Everything is on the screen for too long: even the excellent composites. By extending every scene, Borowczyk reduces their effect, effectively making them boring for the audience. I will say this for him; he knows how to stab himself in the back. Another component he should have directed with a firmer hand is the cast.

Because the cast is appalling: I was willing to put it down to the overdubbing, but I simply couldn't. Nearly every actor or actress in this movie has performed a hundred times better in other productions. There's a tie for the worst performer - Udo Kier as Jekyll and Patrick Magee as General William Danvers. Watching Kier fully clothed in the bathtub splashing about like a fish out of water is hilarious, while Magee appears to be adlibbing his lines - very badly. I felt embarrassed for all the performers, except Gerard Zalcberg, as he's not too bad as Jekyll's alter-ego Hyde.

Now with all that said, I cannot, even with a stout heart and malice in mind, recommend you watch Dr Jeckyll And His Women. There are so many superior movies out there to entertain you. Even the multitude of Jekyll and Hyde flicks are better than this tripe.

Back in the cupboard with you, my precious; you're not my type. While you're waiting for Hyde to resurface, check out my Absolute Horror, The Final Frontier, and Killer Thriller Chillers lists to see where I ranked Dr Jeckyll And His Women - But, better yet: You can find a more enjoyable movie to watch.

Take Care & Stay Well.

After being very disappointed with "The Beast", I had little expectations towards Borowczyk's other entry in the horror genre "Dr. Jekyll and his Women", and ended up being very surprised. It feels like the more serious but neglected younger cousin of Paul Morrisey's "Flesh for Frankenstein" and "Blood for Dracula", which also starred Udo Kier, and took a considerably more violent, erotic and often humorous approach at a classic horror story. While it does have a witty sense of humor, "Dr. Jekyll.." is a darker affair, that actually does seem to try and creep you out. While it isn't a 'terrifying' film, it is genuinely disturbing, haunting and sometimes creepy. The various changes from the source material worked in favor for the film, as it made it more fresh and engaging than other versions of the story. The empashis on Mr. Hyde as a sex maniac is much bigger in this one, as basically all he does is rape members of the high society, men and women alike, to death with a 35 foot, sharp-as-a-knife "organ". Despite the rather "absurd" premise, the subject matter is treated very elegantly and doesn't really come off as exploitive or comical. As a matter of fact, the rape scenes are all quite hard to watch, and unlike "The Beast", are not at all arousing, with gruesome aftermaths. Still, it's also quite beautiful and, as usual for a Borowczyk film, very dreamlike and surreal indeed, with some deliciously otherworldly shots that you'd want to frame and hang on your wall. The film also works as an interesting social commentary on the decadent lives on 19th century high society, as Jekyll and Hyde seem to represent the depraved, monstrous characterstics of the bourgeoisie, hidden behind an elegant, sophisticated facade. As I mentioned before, the film is quite different from the novel. Nevertheless, it manages to capture the novel's atmosphere perfectly, unlike many other more faithful adaptations. Borowczyk pays extreme attention to detail, with everything from set design, costumes to background lounge piano music, just screams "Victorian England". The synthesizer soundtrack by Bernard Parmegiani is subtly used to great effect in creating the fear of the unknown prowling every corner. While the film is slow, it's never really boring. There's an impeding sense of doom that grows with every minute, and each frame has such visual flourishes that it's simply impossible to look away. Last but not least, the film also benefits from a great cast that includes Eurohorror regulars such as Marina Perro and Howard Vernon - Dr. Orloff himself! Though the dubbing is not very good, the actors still manage to give good performances, particularly Pierro and Kier (who, unfortunately, gets the same kind of dubbing as he had in "Suspiria"). Overall, another great, obscure art-house horror gem that deserves more praise and recognition. 10 out of 10

Little people know of "the strange case of doctor jekyll and miss osbourne" i brought the arrow video release of the film and watched it and really enjoyed it. the film is a bizarre piece of art yet beautiful with all shots and lighting standing out. the film is a great reimagining of the original dr jekyll and mister hyde novel. the film stars udo kier in a faultless performance along with a clockwork oranges patrick magee with both actors at the top of their game. the films chilling soundtrack creates a lonely abstract feel to the film making each scene more and more terrifying. you can buy the film easily online and highly recommend it to every horror fan.

Even though I watched the dubbed and censored (about 15 minutes of footage cut out as far as I can tell) version of 'Dr Jekyll and His Women' I was still very impressed by it. Director Borowczyk is best remembered for the infamous art/porn classic 'The Beast' so anyone who has seen that eye-popping oddity will have some idea what they're in for. Exactly what was left out of this cut I don't know, but looking at what Mr Hyde has in his pants it isn't difficult to guess! Cult legend Udo Kier ('Flesh For Frankenstein', 'Blood For Dracula', 'The Story Of O', 'Suspiria', etc.etc.) plays Dr Henry Jekyll, Marina Pierro (Rollin's 'The Living Dead Girl') is his fiancee, and the supporting cast includes the marvelous character actors Howard Vernon (who appeared in innumerable Jess Franco movies, 'Alphaville', 'Delicatessen' and many other cult favourites) and Patrick Magee ('Dementia 13', 'The Masque Of The Red Death', 'The Birthday Party','A Clockwork Orange'). Magee gives a classic performance and almost steals the movie from Kier. Both actors make 'Dr Jekyll and His Women' essential viewing for any fan of the bizarre and "out there". I can't wait to see the complete version of this movie, I'm sure it's amazing! As it is, despite my intense dislike of unnecessarily butchered video cuts, I highly recommend this movie.

I gotta say that I was really impressed with this one and sorely wished I had given this a shot before trying director Walerian Borowczyk's wildly over-rated THE BEAST first. That film is more of a smutty, profane little one liner joke (a good joke, mind you) hidden inside of about 70 minutes of artsy-fartsy French crap. This movie actually has a pair of balls by comparison, is equally unafraid to offend/shock, yet has an actual story worth bothering with at it's root.

It's yet another potentially smutty little adaptation of classic literature, namely "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde" by Robert Louis Stevenson. According to Peter Tombs' "Immoral Tales", Borowczyk claimed at the time to have based his screenplay on a previously lost early draft of Stevenson's story that Borowczyk stumbled upon while doing research at Oxford's library ... with Colonel Mustard and his lead pipe no doubt. Stevenson's estate sued Borowczyk for slander or plagiarism or both -- my memory is vague on the subject, someone nipped my copy of the book for all the pictures of naked boobs with blood oozing over them -- and he had to settle out of court before the film could be released.

Whatever. It was only on reflection after wards that I realized if Udo Keir could find himself a role as a mummy and a wolfman he would have a rare claim to eternal fame for having played all of the classic Universal monsters at one time or another: Dracula, Baron Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll being under his belt already. Look out, Paul Naschy. One of the weaknesses of this film was some idiot's decision to DUB the voice of the man who gave the world the expression (sic) "ZE UNMAIGHTY NASUM". The film is not depleted by lacking Keir's distinctive voice but would have been more, ehh, distinctive for having it. If you book an actor as famous for their diction as they are their willingness to take on risky projects you should at least do them the courtesy of being heard on the audio track.

As a sort of glaring example, take Patrick MacGee: He steals the show for two or three scenes just by the way that he speaks his lines, he was such a marvelous actor & film presence. Howard Vernon is awesome as Jekyll's nosey doctor friend, Marina Pierro looks like she would have been an animal in bed with her blood red contact lenses and moist cleavage, and yes that is a different actor playing the Edward Hyde role & not just an oddly made up Udo.

As for the cut/uncut considerations, try to find the English language print with the funny Scandanavian subtitles: All the others are censored to one degree or another, and this certainly is a movie with quite a bit to offend any ratings board member: Murdered violated young girls, a sex harlot being enthusiastically spanked by her father, a murdering sex maniac with a distended sex member who uses it on anything with some body heat. The scene where the young dancer is medically examined received a couple three playbacks so we could make careful note of the dimensions: 35 centimeters in length by 6 centimeters in width, and rigid enough to cause abdominal injuries visible from the outside. To hell with a cure, that Hyde formula could make Viagra obsolete.

So what is it about Walerian Borowczyk? Is adapting classical literature into borderline obscene movies with sly social commentary his particular schtick? Why all the emphasis on sex? And why does it always have to be sex that revels in a one form of deviancy or another? He shoots great interior scenes: Claustrophobia and rigid definition of space combined with offbeat methods of obtaining orgasm. It's effective art & film, easily the most provocative adaptation of the Hyde story to the screen that I can remember seeing, but what is he really trying to tell us here? By not offering an explanation he succeeds where THE BEAST was all explanation. This movie rulez, see it any way you can find it.

8/10

A strange and dream-like interpretation of the Jekyll and Hyde story that brings out the themes of sexual fantasy and violence. It's several years since I saw it, but there are still scenes that stick in the mind, like memories of a disturbing nightmare.

This movie was recently screened at a local theater and being a fan of old horror movies, I went to see it based on the title alone, not knowing what I was in for. I didn't find the movie all that engaging for the first twenty or so minutes and thought I might've made a mistake in going. Boy was I wrong! It turned out to be one of the best movies I've seen. The first 20 minutes couldn't have prepared me for the insanity that would subsequently erupt on the screen.

The person I was with kept snickering at what she perceived as plot holes or moments that she found over the top, but if you're concerned about the plot or expect this to be a faithful rendition of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, you're missing the point. The coherence of the story doesn't really matter; what makes this movie amazing are the mesmerizing dream-like images and atmosphere, enhanced with excellent photography and lighting (some of the best lighting I've seen in a color movie) and set to a soundtrack of piano and hypnotic, minimalist electronic music (from the days when "electronic music" meant analog technology, not Casio keyboards), occasionally punctuated with silence. There were parts where I almost felt like I was watching a silent film, except with music and in color.

The photography reminded me somewhat of Andrei Tarkovsky's boring but visually beautiful film Stalker.

There were scenes in this movie, like one that took place in a bathtub, which played with the viewer's sense of time in a manner that I've only encountered in some of David Lynch's work. I have to wonder if Lynch might not have picked up a few tricks from this movie.

The closest thing I can compare it to in terms of "feel" would be to Carnival of Souls or perhaps more appropriately, to the 1964 "pink film" Hakujitsumu (Day-Dream).

Even though there is a realistic, and hence viscerally unsettling, quality to much of the brutality in this film, Docteur Jekyll et les femmes is not a gorefest. It might be best to think of it as more of an "arthouse" film than as standard horror, kinda like a Russian Ark that won't put you to sleep. If you go into it expecting Friday the 13th or something like that, you're going to be disappointed.

My only real complaint is the gratuitous sleaze, in particular the quasi-pornographic homosexual rape, the father flogging his daughter's bare buttocks, and the close-up on the dead maid's crotch, parts which needlessly drag the movie into sexploitation territory, making it less effective. I might've considered this a masterpiece if it hadn't been trashed up with what I can only assume were the director's pet perversions. I guess he just couldn't help throwing a couple of turds in the punch bowl.

Here's hoping that this unique film gets a proper release on DVD sometime, since as of this review, it appears to be unavailable on home video. I suppose I should count myself lucky that I got to see it at all.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne (1981)

** (out of 4)

Walerian Borowczyk's wild, over-the-top sexual fever nightmare has Dr. Jekyll (Udo Kier) and Miss Osbourne (Marina Pierro) having an engagement party but soon the entire thing leads to a disaster when a sexual predator shows up.

THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MISS OSBOURNE isn't the first version of the Jekyll and Hyde story to feature a sexual slant. This film is something that many consider a masterpiece but I'm not going to share that much praise. It's becoming rather clear that I respect Borowczyk a lot more than I actually enjoy his films. This movie here is very slow moving but it's beautiful to look at. It doesn't have anything we haven't seen before yet it has moments that are strong enough to hold your attention.

The biggest issue with this film is the fact that I simply see it as a fake. Porn, art and horror can go together and several directors have done it. Jess Franco and Jean Rollin immediately come to mind and I think both of them didn't try to hide behind any one genre and they would just jump into the material and go for it. I'm not sure why but it always seemed to me that Borowczyk didn't ever go in full steam. I mean, both this film and THE BEAST took familiar stories, added a touch of sex but I wouldn't say either went to the extreme of what they could have.

We basically have a rapist running around the party and, like in THE BEAST, we see an erect penis. Was this meant to be shocking? I guess for some it would have been but to me it was just a silly sequence and nothing that happened was all that shocking. It was well-made and there's no question that the film has a surreal atmosphere and a beautiful image but on the whole there's very little story and it's overly boring. Both Kier and Pierro are good as are the supporting players including Howard Vernon.