Noutions
Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .
MusicChat
It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.
Senteur
As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.
Michael Ledo
If you have read the classic, you might notice a slight deviation in plot. I am confused by the second disc. Does anyone really want the soundtrack to this movie?If your idea of Jekyll and Hyde is a lot of girl on girl action, then this movie is for you. Misty always seems to wear the same outfit in all of her movies: a Catholic school girl uniform with stockings and heels. Not that it looks bad on her, but can we move on to another fantasy? It was hard to judge the acting because there was little dialogue.In the trailers I was surprised to discover there was an actual script for the movie. Imagine getting paid for writing this. Wouldn't you feel guilty cashing the check? Unless of course they slipped some over hormone teen a Jackson for it.
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...
Li-1
Rating as a softcore flick: C+ Watching Seduction Cinema flicks are a considerably different experience than most other movies of the softcore genre. They usually have poorer production values, attempt at having a plot that constantly shifts in tone, and feature women who, shall I put it kindly, are usually plain and not all that attractive.But there are exceptions to that last rule, as I had an immediate crush on Laurie Wallace when I first saw her in The Erotic Witch Project, thus my only reason to seek out the rest of her films under Seduction. This eventually led me to Witchbabe, which had one fairly short scene in it with Julian Wells, but it was enough to make clear that Laurie would have some competition as the hottest chick in Seduction (though, as far as I'm aware, Laurie now works for Torchlight Pictures).So Dr. Jekyll and Mistress Hyde marks the first movie I've seen with Julian in the lead role, and all things considered, it's not such a bad softcore movie. Sure, most of the other women are unattractive, particularly Ruby Larocca and the overrated Misty Mundae, but almost every scene features Julian in it, enough to carry me through the short 70 or so minutes.The film actually tries to work as a serious psychological drama and as a titillating skin flick, and this is where the problems mostly lie. When it concentrates on the former, it's mostly a disaster. While the cinematography is surprisingly solid and atmospheric, the acting and script simply aren't good enough to make any of the drama believable. The performances are especially pathetic, with Larocca sounding like she's having difficulty memorizing her lines.But as a softcore extravaganza, the movie gets just enough right to get a passable recommendation. It is unfortunate, though, that an early masturbation scene with Julian looks as if it boasted a body double in her place, even though such a move makes no sense in this genre. Otherwise, though, I would say the movie is worth watching for those who find Julian Wells an absolute hottie.
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)
