Jekyll & Hyde

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.

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.

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

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.