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.
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.