|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Index||32 reviews in total|
I am not a fan of Bay Watch, but David Hasselhoff did an outstanding job. I believe theater is Hasselhoff's calling. If you can watch this musical with an open mind, and get over the fact that the star has done crappy TV you will realize that he has talent for theater. His performance left me shocked and wanting more. I have watched the musical many times and the performance still amazes me. I first saw the musical in a College English class, Horror Fiction and Film, at Chapman University. I thought the professor was crazy for making us watch this film, but I was wrong. Anyone who is a fan of musical theater will enjoy this. I only wish I heard about this when it was still live. I would have enjoyed seeing it. I hope that Hasselhoff does more theater in the future. There is room for him to improve, but I believe over time he could be an outstanding theater performer.
Since I was christened into the beauty of Jekyll and Hyde the Musical
by Anthony Warlow's sterling performance, I sat down to watch this
version with exactly the right attitude. I was drawn to watch it by the
pure horror that the thought of David Hasselhoff butchering my
favourite musical instilled. I had to see it, because potentially I
would laugh harder than I ever had in my life. So suitably, I was there
with a friend, some cheap chocolate liqueur, and a projection monitor
turning the lounge room wall into the stage.
Some of the casting annoyed me. I guess I'm something of a purist when it comes to period theater, but John being black seems culturally improbable, and the inevitable deepness and timbre to George Merritt's voice made him dominate over Hassellhoff, which turns the character into more of a mentor figure than a friend and equal.
Andrea Rivette's singing in what looked like the world's second tightest corset was amazing to behold, but the depth in her acting was lacking.
Small lyrical changes to a lot of the songs seemed made in an effort to dumb the plot and themes down to make it nice and sachharin, and that reeks of censorship, which I abhor in any form.
What made it for me is exactly what drew me, like a train wreck, to watch.
David Hasselhoff is not a born singer, nor is he likely to become a seasoned veteran of Broadway musical, but I was shocked silent by the intensity of his rendition of the confrontation. It wasn't mind-blowing, but it was a guy who used to drive a talking car doing it, which made it all the more impressive. The makeup and lighting effect used for the sequence was also nicely effective.
Ultimately, I feel I got a solid (if B grade) performance all round. Hasselhoff, I imagine, has fulfilled a lifelong dream, and I raise my glass to him for doing it.
When I saw this on the schedule I howled with laughter and my wife prepared
to barf on the floor -- Hasselhoff has always been a joke as far as we were
concerned. We were absolutely floored to find that he can actually act if
given a chance, and has a great voice with tremendous range and power. Who
could have guessed?
I read the other comments, often negative, and noticed that most of the slams were from stage & musical afficionados, most of whom had first seen other Broadway leads in the title role. I have no doubt there are some spectacular male leads who have sung this role earlier, and perhaps one day I'll see them also; however, Hasselhoff's performance is excellent, period, and I have gone from thinking of him as a boring, no-talent dork to having a great respect for his acting and his heretofore unsuspected singing ability. His "Hyde" is very reminiscent of Jack Palance's portrayal, and on occasion the facial resemblance is rather eery. One wonders whether it was a deliberate affectation or mere chance..
His Baywatch and Knight Rider shows were pure, gag-me-with-a-spoon drivel, completely unwatchable by normal human earthlings. But this .... the man was hiding some serious talent -- probably there was little one could do with those awful TV roles.
This experience reminds me very much of the first time I saw Andy Griffith in A FACE IN THE CROWD -- and realized that behind those stupid "Andy of Mayberry" grins lay one of the finest dramatic actors in the business. Frankly, I felt cheated. I'm glad Griffith enjoyed the success and money, but I feel genuine sorrow for all the other dramatic roles he COULD have given us. Now, ditto for Hasselhoff.
When I first found this movie in the 2/$5 bin at my local Wal-Mart I thought it looked cheesy enough to pay 2.50 for... then I saw David Hasslehoff and had to buy it. I fully expected a terrible film that I would struggle through the first 30 minutes of and then shut it off, but at least I could say I tried. In truth I did find the first of it kind of hokey, but that's because the acting is performed in the style of the theatre. Everything is meant to be projected to the back rows. Even with this in mind Hasslehoff's facial expressions as Hyde were a bit cheese at some point, but his overall performance was good. Coleen Sexton's performance was amazing all around as she is not only stunning, but has an amazing voice. In general I found some of the song lyrics in the play came across as rather forced (on account of the writers, not the singers) but the entire experience remains quite enjoyable. I highly recommend the 2.50. :D (or maybe even a bit more)
I'm a Jekyll and Hyde fan and love anything to do with this fantastic
story (courtesy of Robert Louis Stevenson), and I never saw the
original Broadway play so I had no comparison to make when I watched
this on VHS, not DVD.
And from the comments I've read, Hasselhoff is getting a bad rap. He's not at all bad in the role, has good stage presence, can deal with the songs which are in no way memorable to begin with (in fact, the musical's biggest weakness is that all the songs sound alike and all sound very derivative), and he does the separate characters with little more than a change in hairstyle, attitude and voice.
He's getting the sort of disdain always reserved for anyone who comes in as a replacement for someone else--especially if that show is now available worldwide as this video is.
GERARD BUTLER got the same reception when he dared to take on a role that MICHAEL CRAWFORD (with his high tenor voice) seemed to "own" in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Butler's acting added new dimension to the part and now he has his own huge fan base based on his decision to "stretch" and assume a role originally written for a higher male voice.
David HASSELHOFF took a chance because he wanted to "stretch", rather than be remembered solely for his BAYWATCH and other TV roles. I saw him years ago in a Jack the Ripper story made for television and I recognized then that he could do very well in more serious roles.
Summing up: Let's face it, this was NEVER a great musical to begin with, but Hasselhoff does a commendable job in a tricky leading role. I was totally unimpressed by the supporting cast. I found all the other performances just adequate with nobody really standing out nor anyone with a voice worth remarking on. As for the songs, no comment.
Jekyll and Hyde is one of my all-time favorite musicals. I've seen it on
stage many times and have every recording made (even the old Colm
Wilkinson-Linda Eder concept album!). I was given this video as a gift and
when I read that David Hasselhoff was starring, I had the same reaction that
I'm sure many of you did: "The Baywatch guy? You've got to be kidding me."
...but I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised. I think many people wanted so badly to hate David Hasselhoff in this that they automatically wrote him off and didn't give him a chance. Was he the best Jekyll/Hyde I've seen? Well, no. His singing voice was sort of inconsistent. There were times when it really reached out with dramatic power, and other times when it suffered from a little too much vibrato for my taste. Believe it or not, it was his *acting* (surprise, surprise!) that impressed me the most. I think that Mr. Hasselhoff's talent was perhaps wasted on screen. He does a fine job as a stage actor, and has obviously come a long way from his Baywatch days. He seems to be more at home in front of a live audience. His Hyde impressed me the most. He shows a skillful use of the eyes and body language.
Hasselhoff is surrounded by a talented supporting cast. I like Coleen Sexton's rather cute, sweet portrayal of Lucy. It offers a unique contrast to Linda Eder's sultry rendition. My only criticism of Sexton's performance is a personal preference issue: she belts too much when she sings, and extends her belting range too high. It sounds painful to me.
Andrea Rivette is a class act as Emma Carew, Jekyll's fiancee. Her voice is beautiful, and her poise perfect for the role. George Merritt and Barrie Ingham were outstanding as John Utterson and Sir Danvers Carew, respectively. I absolutely loved Merritt's voice. The rich, deep quality of it carried over to his speaking lines as well.
Overall, a good effort by all.
I have had the dubious privilege of seeing an excellent production of
this profoundly mediocre play. While I'm not a Hoff-Hater, I sincerely
doubt that even Al Pacino could improve it. The music is occasionally
pleasant, but always highly derivative (it sounds like every other
Broadway play ever made); the pop-philosophical mauling of Stephenson's
idea is offensively simplistic; the plot "twists" manage to be at once
predictable, heavy-handed, and misogynistic (my young niece
perceptively mis-observed: "All the womens died").
If you're looking for a good musical, look somewhere else. If you're looking for a good, interesting interpretation of the Jekyll-Hyde story, look to the Christopher Lee / Peter Cushing vehicle "I, Monster", which makes genuinely interesting and creative changes to Stephenson's idea. ("Hyde:Jekyll" becomes "Blake:Marlowe", for example, to highlight the Faustian and gnostic aspects of the story.) It's a typical '60s low-budget screamer, but at that, it has ten times the heart of this vacuous product.
With the coming Extraordinary League of Gentlemen, how could i not be
hypnotized by this musical? I came accidentally on it and thought: lets
learn more about this dr. Jekyll.
I thought at first it was not a musical but a play: the actors were
and the atmosphere was breathtaking.. And that doctor, so convincing! To
honest, i was sure it was David Hasselhoff only at the end when it was
actually written!! Even with his imposant body, his sharp face, i
say he was D.H. What a wonderfull surprise! So to answer to a previous
post, you'll be impressed even if you're not a D.H. fan! He is really
playing it with his guts as well as Jekyll's passion for science as
lust for destruction!
Utterson is also played very skillfully and one of the most funny
in the play.
This one conclusion i took from this experience is of course not
rely myself only on the facade of people: Hasselhoff on baywatch on one
can be more than convincing as Jekyll and Hyde!
Go see it for yourself!
When I heard of a musical version of jekyll and hyde I laughed. When I
saw hasslehoff was going to play the lead I groaned. I am pleased to
say In both cases my fears where unfounded.
The music itself is one of the more aggressive, dark scores ever added to a musical. Although this does lead to a lack of shade in the play, the plot does demand a certain menace and therefore the aggression can be excused. I would like to make a special mention in honour of Coleen sexton who play lucy. She may have one of the best voices I have ever heard on stage. It also boasts some of the best acting I have ever seen in the confrontation as jekyll and hyde sing a duet.
So... If it so good... Why only a 6? There is one flaw and it's a big one. Hasslehoff. As hyde he is perfect. He looks great, sounds great, and his acting is perfect.
As Dr Jekyll though it's a different story. He acts brilliantly... However he is not a great singer... He isn't bad... But he just doesn't have the ability to sing the big songs to the standard demanded.
If you can look past that it is worth a watch.
Jekyll and Hyde: The Musical as a musical is an entertaining pleasure, the story is respectful to the classic original story and the songs are great if with a few derivative numbers. This performance was actually pretty good if majorly flawed. Some of the ensembles sound scrappy and under-rehearsed with some of it sounding unsure and with times where rhythmically it could have been more precise. Most of the direction is fine, though there are a few anachronistic touches, parts that did feel too busy and the transformation sequence is clumsily handled. The most problematic aspect was David Hasselhoff, some have said he is better than he is given credit for and most have said he's bad. For me he was more inconsistent than anything else, he is to be applauded for taking on something he really wanted to do but one can't help thinking that despite the brave effort he was not well-suited for the difficult iconic dual role. He is better as Mr Hyde than Dr Jekyll, as Hyde he is entertaining and with some shades of chills though he does overdo it but as Jekyll he is both bland and hammy with facial expressions that are so forced it's off-putting. Didn't care for his voice either, some of the big notes are decent and there are moments where it does sound nice but much of it is very unsteady- with excessive vibrato that it sounds bleaty- and strained, especially in This is the Moment(which started off breathy and un-vocal but got a little better later). However, the costumes and sets are authentic and beautiful, complete with lighting that compliments the atmosphere very well. The photography is good too and the make-up is chillingly effective. The orchestra play with power, control and nuance throughout with tempos that are appropriate for the moods of each song. The choreography is neither overblown or staid, instead a very nice in between, and the stage direction on the whole allows the atmosphere of the story to come through and it is true in spirit to the show and the story. The supporting performances were great, especially Andrea Rivette, who makes for a poised and heart-breaking Emma complete with a voice that has much depth and beauty, Colleen Sexton, who is very charming with an equally beautiful light voice, and George Merritt, loved his rich mellow tone and how he was able to tell so much while doing little(with any look and gesture speaking volumes). Martin Van Treuren takes on a dual role and in a way that the two characters are so different that you are shocked that it's the same person. Barrie Ingham is also good. To conclude, pretty good though with an inconsistent Hasselhoff. 6/10 Bethany Cox
|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Ratings||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|