Karry
Best movie of this year hands down!
Humaira Grant
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Kien Navarro
Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
serialhag76
I'll make this short and sweet: Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde is definitely worth watching at least once, but the making-of featurette (which curiously runs longer than the actual movie) is a doozy. Watch Misty Mundae chain smoke in the car, in the hotel room, on the set, etc. See Julian Wells' ripped up granny panties and deliver a hilarious 9/11 Q&A session with the director. And is Ruby Esmerelda LaRocca always so damned hyper? Misty is even more adorable in her glasses, sans makeup, hanging out in her room and taking a stroll down the Strip. Oh my God, could I be in love? It's very possible. Too bad she's into guys, too. Sigh...
Son_of_Mansfield
It should come as no shock that this film bears little resemblance to the book it is based on. This film throws out most of the plot, characters, thought, and language of the book. But it does add boobies, so hope all is not lost. Julian Wells, Misty Mundae, Ruby Larocca, Andrea Davis, and a very ugly man star in this movie. I will never understand Tony Marsiglia's need to have a man in his movies, but at least he is only in two scenes. Ruby gets the shaft in this movie...I mean she is only in the two scenes with vum. Ruby gets no orgy this time? Was she bad? If Andrea Davis could work on her "acting" a little, she could do very well in these movies. She has pretzel nub nipples. Some of the sex looks fake and the drab locations are no fun. Stick with Marsiglia's superior Sin Sisters.P.S. If I don't stop humming "Something's Come Over Me," from the DJ&MH soundtrack, I may have to dance.
Dr. Gore
*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* I bought this DVD as a Christmas present. It was from me to me. I wanted some Julian Wells under my tree. Well, well, well. How very well indeed. Julian invents a green drug that makes her horny. Misty Mundae keeps popping up to satisfy her green drug lust. Wells can't live without Mundae in her life. Will she overdose on nonstop sex with Mundae? Will the viewer? "Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde" is the Julian and Misty show. They make it with each other five or six times. Wells takes a shot of green ecstasy and only has eyes and lips for Mundae. Wells wants Mundae to dress up like one of her first patients she fell in love with. It's kind of like "Vertigo" but with lesbians."Dr. Jekyll and Mistress Hyde" is basically a love story. Mundae and Wells have a lot of sex but it's all pretty chaste. A lot of light kisses. Now I like seeing the ladies kiss but I think I could have gone for some more hot and heavy action. I definitely could have gone for a little more variety with regards to Well's lovers. The best scene is a close-up of Wells as she goes to town on a girl's breasts. Not Mundae's but some other girl with gigantic nipples. See that? Variety man. Spice of life.Overall, this is a decent softcore flick. It's worth a look. If you want to see Julian Wells and Misty Mundae fall in love, this is the movie for you.
MovieLuvaMatt
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)
