Alicia I love this movie so much

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Leofwine_draca After their successful collaboration on JACK THE RIPPER, director David Wickes and star Michael Caine teamed up again for yet another Victorian-set horror story. Visually, the two films are very similar indeed, with exactly the same atmosphere of public fear and with villains running through fog-bound streets. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same sets, too. While spoiled by some serious flaws, JEKYLL & HYDE is still a pretty enjoyable movie, mainly because of the good cast and the authentic-looking setting.The major flaw with this film is the misjudging of the horror scenes. They may be violent, but the character of Hyde is so ridiculous-looking that he isn't scary in the slightest. Instead the makeup guys really went overboard with Caine's appearance, covering his face and hands with air-sacks in order to make his rubbery flesh expand and pulsate. The comical scenes of Caine transforming seem more like something out of THE INCREDIBLE HULK than a serious horror film, which this tries to be, and the two different methods are at odds; on one hand you have the atmosphere-building and scene-setting, and on the other a series of cheap shock tactics designed to make the viewer jump. It doesn't work, and Hyde just ends up being laughable and a big disappointment.The acting, though, on the other hand, is fine, even if most of the cast indulge in television-movie histrionics and go over-the-top at times. Caine is fine as the romantic lead, but he really goes overboard sometimes when he transforms. Cheryl Ladd is given a rather dumb blonde to play, but she does it well and convincingly. Joss Ackland appears as a rival doctor to Caine's Jekyll, and is pretty good, as are all the familiar British faces supporting the cast, especially David Schofield as the sleazy journalist, Snape. Watch out for an ancient Lionel Jeffries briefly appearing as Jekyll's father. In all, this is a well-shot and directed drama, but as a horror it falls short. The shorter running time than JACK THE RIPPER means that there are none of that film's pacing problems, and a wealth of action means that JEKYLL & HYDE never becomes boring; just stupid occasionally. In all, an average adaptation, seriously flawed but with its fair share of points in its favour.

bkoganbing A little more back story is given to this production of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous classic. Taking his turn in the ultimate dual personality role this time is Michael Caine in Jekyll&Hyde.Caine plays the Victorian doctor in London doing experiments upon himself with mind and body altering drugs who eventually creates an evil alter ego he names as Mr. Hyde. Caine's work has brought him into a nasty personal conflict with his father-in-law Joss Ackland who is also a doctor. Caine is a widower and Ackland believes that his daughter died under his care while Caine experimented with her like a guinea pig. His other daughter Cheryl Ladd doesn't agree. Her husband is a member of the Royal Navy and at sea. She's at sea so to speak herself and not getting certain needs fulfilled. Ladd also tells us that it was an arranged marriage in any event and it's her brother-in-law that really floats her boat.A lot of credit should go to the makeup department who create a truly evil and terrifying Mr. Hyde. Caine himself creates a dual character of man and beast that takes its place along side such other creators as John Barrymore, Fredric March, Spencer Tracy, Jack Palance, Kirk Douglas and now Caine.For the modern viewer there lots of hints about Freud's ego and id and that of mind altering chemicals that today are serious law enforcement issues as well. There's also a nice depiction of the London of the Gladstone/Salisbury era.Fans of the tale will be satisfied.

Anders Olsen 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.

elshikh4 Robert Louis Stevenson's (Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde) summarizes the immortal conflict of good and evil inside the human. Its sad ending has penetrating melancholy which makes it a tragedy of the human weakness in front of evil. That's why I believe that it is one of the most lasting novels in the history of humanity. Actually as times goes by, it develops insisting presence, because, as the devil said it better in The Devil's Advocate, "Don't try to deny that the 20th century is mine". Obviously, Hyde – as the novel predicted perfectly – prevails, yet so many times lately ! Now this is not "based on", but "derived from" the famous novel. It's a TV movie, namely – this time – simple, talkative and a bit poor (Hyde's mask was "apparently" a mask!). But I loved the first transformation's scene, it freaks out. The plot is interesting with Cheryl Ladd's storyline. And surely Michael Caine adds a lot to it.Back then Caine was seduced by historical and based upon famous literary pieces, especially done for the TV. Between the end of the 1980s and the end of the 1990s he played : Chief Insp. Frederick Abberline in Jack the Ripper (1988), Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde in Jekyll & Hyde (1990), Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1997). Not to mention that in the same period's cinema he played Sherlock Holmes in Without a Clue (1988), and Ebenezer Scrooge in The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992).His presence gives (Jekyll & Hyde) an electrifying sense. He makes it memorable. I can't forget his moment running in the street screaming for help while his last transformation into Hyde.The movie displays tender movie-making, especially the cinematography. However, what really stands alone is the last shot. It's one of the most shocking endings, rather moments, I have ever experienced. The truth of the son Dr. Jakell leaves as Hyde's is so cleverly written and directed. And on a deeper level it assures that the world will be for Hyde not Jakell. Naturally I think, since we're all the breed of Cain !Nice movie altogether, with a majestic Michael Caine, and some dark twist which leaves unmistakable bitter feel.