Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

jacobjohntaylor1 This a very scary movie. It has great acting. It also has great special effects. It also has great story line. If you do not get scared off this movie then no movie will scary you. Doctor Jekyll's wife his murdered. He wants revenge. He find a chains drug that bring out his inner evil. The is a master masterpiece in terror and revenge. A great horror. Best one one of the best horror books ever. This a very scary movie. The 1912 version is better. The 1920 version is better. The 1932 version is also better. So is the 1941 version. But still this is a great movie. This movie is a must see. Adam Baldwin is a great actor. Steve B.a.s.t.o.n.i

kgowen-1 I never can figure out how turkeys like this get green-lighted by movie studios. Are they that desperate to make money? I just wasted two hours of my life watching this giant pile of fail. It looked as if Coppola took 3 different movies: a martial arts flick, an east-west cop/buddy pic, and the Jekyll-Hyde story, and tried to stitch them all together Frankenstein-style into one movie. Add some crappy dialogue, cheesy one-liners that fail miserably and hambone acting (everyone in this movie is pretty bad, an Adam Baldwin chews the scenery like a beaver on crack) and the result is a confused, unappealing mess.Don't waste your time like I did. Watch a good movie instead.

SylvesterFox007 This is the loosest adaptation of anything I've ever seen. In fact, loose doesn't even begin to describe it. What Sci-Fi has done is taken the title of the Robert Louis Stevenson's novella in order to draw viewers in, and nothing else.The TV movie follows Dr. Henry Jekyll, now a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon. The entire supporting cast of Stevenson's story, even in name, is nonexistent. Jekyll travels to China with his new bride for a honeymoon. There he encounters Chinese mobsters who maim the doctor, kill his wife, and leave him for revenge.Up to this point, the movie had potential. An action-adventure vigilante retelling of "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" might have been worth seeing. Unfortunately, the movie never even tries to live up to its source material. Dr. Jekyll apprentices himself to a local medicine man and studies martial arts under the name "Edward Hyde." It looks like Sci-Fi had to throw both of those names in there somewhere in order to keep the title. Eventually, in the final third of the movie, Dr. Jekyll does make a medicine that gives him glowing eyes, sharp teeth, and a killer edge. But Stevenson's theme of the struggle between good and evil inside of every man is unexplored. If Sci-Fi was going to take the title, they should have at the very least tried to stay true to the theme. Under the influence of the medicine, Dr. Jekyll is aware, even more aware, of what he is doing. Mr. Hyde is all alias, no altar ego.The acting performances are solid, but the movie is hard to enjoy when it begs to be compared to its classic source material. Before the halfway point of the movie, the "Based on the book by Robert Louis Stevenson" in the credits seems like a bold-faced lie. If you enjoy American-in-China-kung-fu-action movies, and you have nothing better to watch, try this on for size. If you're looking for an adaptation of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", avoid this, or you'll be sorely disappointed.

chembai Ouch, this one sucks big time. Too many plot holes, atrocious acting (if you can call it acting in the first place), rotten one-liners, wisecracking Chicago cop, this film just has no saving grace except some lovely shots of Hong Kong. Take my word, skip it.