I honestly expected this movie to be pure trash, and make no mistake, this movie was definitely sleazy, often to the point of revulsion.
What I didn't expect was for the movie to be worthwhile otherwise. The sleaze actually works well within the Jekyll and Hyde mythos, as none of the crimes committed in the movie are beyond Hyde in any of his incarnations. I've definitely seen Hyde hammed up far worse in other movies and stage performances.
So why cling to the unnecessary sleaze? I think the director felt it wouldn't be commercially viable without it, and unfortunately, he was probably right.
This version of Hyde is closer to what Stevenson originally envisioned, a barbaric and small minded monster, that only cares about satisfying his base impulses, and nothing else. He can't concentrate long enough to form a plan or vendetta. He's a savage, primitive monster, through and through.
What separates this version from others is its unnecessarily over the top sexual violence, a few VERY graphic scenes, and the fact (SPOILER COMING) that his 'bride to be' joins him in his debauchery at the end, becoming a Hyde-like monster herself.
She's actually far more interesting than Hyde, because instead of acting like a basic sex fiend, she delves headfirst into nihilism, as does the film as a whole. It's fascinating to see a movie shift tones from 'shock horror' to complete anarchy. The carnage isn't as shocking as it is unexpected, and the actors really dive into it head first. Makes you wonder if it was only their 'characters' who were reveling in the destruction.
The ending is the best part of the movie, as the 'happy couple' destroy the entire house and everyone inside it, in a fit of violence, fire, and self gratification.
It ain't pretty, but I have to admit, it was original.
What I didn't expect was for the movie to be worthwhile otherwise. The sleaze actually works well within the Jekyll and Hyde mythos, as none of the crimes committed in the movie are beyond Hyde in any of his incarnations. I've definitely seen Hyde hammed up far worse in other movies and stage performances.
So why cling to the unnecessary sleaze? I think the director felt it wouldn't be commercially viable without it, and unfortunately, he was probably right.
This version of Hyde is closer to what Stevenson originally envisioned, a barbaric and small minded monster, that only cares about satisfying his base impulses, and nothing else. He can't concentrate long enough to form a plan or vendetta. He's a savage, primitive monster, through and through.
What separates this version from others is its unnecessarily over the top sexual violence, a few VERY graphic scenes, and the fact (SPOILER COMING) that his 'bride to be' joins him in his debauchery at the end, becoming a Hyde-like monster herself.
She's actually far more interesting than Hyde, because instead of acting like a basic sex fiend, she delves headfirst into nihilism, as does the film as a whole. It's fascinating to see a movie shift tones from 'shock horror' to complete anarchy. The carnage isn't as shocking as it is unexpected, and the actors really dive into it head first. Makes you wonder if it was only their 'characters' who were reveling in the destruction.
The ending is the best part of the movie, as the 'happy couple' destroy the entire house and everyone inside it, in a fit of violence, fire, and self gratification.
It ain't pretty, but I have to admit, it was original.