Docteur Jekyll et les femmes

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Miss Osbourne (1981)

** (out of 4)

Walerian Borowczyk's wild, over-the-top sexual fever nightmare has Dr. Jekyll (Udo Kier) and Miss Osbourne (Marina Pierro) having an engagement party but soon the entire thing leads to a disaster when a sexual predator shows up.

THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MISS OSBOURNE isn't the first version of the Jekyll and Hyde story to feature a sexual slant. This film is something that many consider a masterpiece but I'm not going to share that much praise. It's becoming rather clear that I respect Borowczyk a lot more than I actually enjoy his films. This movie here is very slow moving but it's beautiful to look at. It doesn't have anything we haven't seen before yet it has moments that are strong enough to hold your attention.

The biggest issue with this film is the fact that I simply see it as a fake. Porn, art and horror can go together and several directors have done it. Jess Franco and Jean Rollin immediately come to mind and I think both of them didn't try to hide behind any one genre and they would just jump into the material and go for it. I'm not sure why but it always seemed to me that Borowczyk didn't ever go in full steam. I mean, both this film and THE BEAST took familiar stories, added a touch of sex but I wouldn't say either went to the extreme of what they could have.

We basically have a rapist running around the party and, like in THE BEAST, we see an erect penis. Was this meant to be shocking? I guess for some it would have been but to me it was just a silly sequence and nothing that happened was all that shocking. It was well-made and there's no question that the film has a surreal atmosphere and a beautiful image but on the whole there's very little story and it's overly boring. Both Kier and Pierro are good as are the supporting players including Howard Vernon.

Two nights ago I watched the heavily cut British VTC release on VHS under the title of "Bloodbath of Dr Jekyll". A party is being held at the large London home of Dr Jekyll (Udo Kier) to celebrate his engagement to the beautiful Miss Fanny Osbourne (played by Marina Pierro), a young girl is viciously attacked outside and it soon becomes apparent that a maniac is among the people in attendance. I found it rather kinky in places and it is an unusual but interesting re-telling of the classic story, I also found it heavy on dialogue and rather boring. Last night I watched the restored and uncut version, "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Miss Osbourne", on Blu-ray and it proved to be a far more rewarding experience. This is not a movie for your typical horror movie fan, and like I have already said it is not a traditional Dr Jekyll movie. It is interesting that Kier, who has also played Dracula and Frankenstein in previous films, only plays Jekyll, here they did not go down the usual make-up route, instead Mr Hyde is played by a different actor (Gerard Zalcberg). In uncut form this movie packs in plenty of nudity, sexual perversions and violence, it's strong stuff. The sets and camerawork are superb, visually very nice and the soundtrack is excellent. I do think that it is one of those movies that benefits from a repeated viewing, not a film for everyone but I enjoyed it so much more second time round, though I don't consider it to be a cinematic masterpiece. Notable for being one of Patrick Magee's final roles, he died the following year.

I liked this movie, it's a cinematic paradox, it kept my attention and i couldn't take my eyes off it. Just like watching a car accident as you pass the accident scene, you know it's not gonna be pretty, you know the things you'll see might haunt you but you still watch. I can't say it's exactly like that, i mean, it's not that unbearable to watch, there is a dark comedy relief here and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously. But still, this is sick and twisted and perverse.

Edward Hyde's Freudian "id" (the primitive, basic, and fully unconscious part of personality) is here more obvious than ever. This movie took it to the extreme, however it captures perfectly its essence. Did it need to be that graphic ? I don't know for sure. In any case, there is zero eroticism here. You can call this movie raw, graphic, sick, even cerebral. But not erotic.

Proceed at your own risk. I'd be a liar though if i say i didn't like it.

It took me a while to find this one, but I finally did. I was dying to see it (because Udo Kier is in it), but I was totally disappointed.

As you may know, it is a Jekyll Hyde plot. Udo plays Dr. Jekyll, and some totally ugly guy plays Mr. Hyde. I agree with the other person who commented, it's much like a disturbing nightmare. Like a dream. The colors in parts are sort of like and Argento film. And it is really bad that it's cut to pieces. I mean, everything half gory must have been cut out.

The movie is dubbed (cutting out Udo's great voice), and he has a really lame hair-do! I just had to tell y'all fellow Udo fans. It's not really worth tracking down, like I did. I give it - 4/10

This film is, as the other reviewers said, rather like watching a dream. It is interesting to note the subtle changes this film makes on the usual Jekyll/Hyde movie formula: Udo Kier's Dr. Jekyll is not really a benefactor of humanity, but a man who revels in being able to commit horrendous crimes in the guise of his alter ego - actually moving the story closer to R. L. Stevenson's original idea. He preaches a philosophy of going beyond good and evil through science.

Likewise, Hyde commits actually repellent crimes of rape, child abuse, and sadism - making him closer to the idea of "unchained evil" than the more genteel transgressions of other movie Hydes.

Overall - a memorable, beautiful, shocking, film. Well worth seeing.