Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Son_of_Mansfield It should come as no shock that this film bears little resemblance to the book it is based on. This film throws out most of the plot, characters, thought, and language of the book. But it does add boobies, so hope all is not lost. Julian Wells, Misty Mundae, Ruby Larocca, Andrea Davis, and a very ugly man star in this movie. I will never understand Tony Marsiglia's need to have a man in his movies, but at least he is only in two scenes. Ruby gets the shaft in this movie...I mean she is only in the two scenes with vum. Ruby gets no orgy this time? Was she bad? If Andrea Davis could work on her "acting" a little, she could do very well in these movies. She has pretzel nub nipples. Some of the sex looks fake and the drab locations are no fun. Stick with Marsiglia's superior Sin Sisters.P.S. If I don't stop humming "Something's Come Over Me," from the DJ&MH soundtrack, I may have to dance.

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.

Dr. Gore *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* I bought this DVD as a Christmas present. It was from me to me. I wanted some Julian Wells under my tree. Well, well, well. How very well indeed. Julian invents a green drug that makes her horny. Misty Mundae keeps popping up to satisfy her green drug lust. Wells can't live without Mundae in her life. Will she overdose on nonstop sex with Mundae? Will the viewer? "Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde" is the Julian and Misty show. They make it with each other five or six times. Wells takes a shot of green ecstasy and only has eyes and lips for Mundae. Wells wants Mundae to dress up like one of her first patients she fell in love with. It's kind of like "Vertigo" but with lesbians."Dr. Jekyll and Mistress Hyde" is basically a love story. Mundae and Wells have a lot of sex but it's all pretty chaste. A lot of light kisses. Now I like seeing the ladies kiss but I think I could have gone for some more hot and heavy action. I definitely could have gone for a little more variety with regards to Well's lovers. The best scene is a close-up of Wells as she goes to town on a girl's breasts. Not Mundae's but some other girl with gigantic nipples. See that? Variety man. Spice of life.Overall, this is a decent softcore flick. It's worth a look. If you want to see Julian Wells and Misty Mundae fall in love, this is the movie for you.

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)