I'll make this short and sweet: Dr. Jekyll & Mistress Hyde is definitely worth watching at least once, but the making-of featurette (which curiously runs longer than the actual movie) is a doozy. Watch Misty Mundae chain smoke in the car, in the hotel room, on the set, etc. See Julian Wells' ripped up granny panties and deliver a hilarious 9/11 Q&A session with the director. And is Ruby Esmerelda LaRocca always so damned hyper? Misty is even more adorable in her glasses, sans makeup, hanging out in her room and taking a stroll down the Strip. Oh my God, could I be in love? It's very possible. Too bad she's into guys, too. Sigh...

I got my introduction to Seduction Cinema a couple of weeks ago with the decent 'Sin Sisters', and while it was a long way both from being brilliant and from the hardcore pornography I'm used to; it was just about good enough to warrant seeing another. Dr Jekyll and Mistress Hyde is very much along the same lines as Sin Sisters in terms of style and plotting, although as the title suggests; the film takes it's backbone from the Robert Louis Stevenson classic novel 'Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde'. The film puts lesbian sex at its forefront (nothing wrong with that) and probably took about two minutes to write. Stevenson's classic easily lends itself to a sex film, and here we focus on Dr Jackie Stevenson (nice name...), a female scientist that has developed a drug to do...something...to women. After trying it on herself, she develops an alter-ego - except this time the alter ego doesn't turn to murder, it turns to having sex with the sultry Misty Mundae, whom Jackie meets at a bus stop. From there, we follow the bizarre love story to its unexpected final twist.The film looks like it was shot with a video camera and probably cost just a fistful of dollars to make. The performances are terrible, with the female leads looking great while delivering awful lines of dialogue in a horribly wooden way. This doesn't matter, of course, as the whole point of the film is simply for its male audience members to enjoy themselves, although it doesn't deliver too much on that front either. Like the performances, the sex is wooden and fake looking and while the initial seduction between Misty Mundae and Julian Wells is rather nice, the rest of the film just sort of rolls on. However, despite its many shortcomings - Dr Jekyll and Mistress Hyde is a real fun film to watch. It's all so stupid that you'd have to be completely humourless not to have a laugh at it, and watching the female leads go at each other is nice even though it's not very well done. Mundae and Wells bode extremely well together as they're polar opposites, and it's obvious that director Tony Marsiglia knows that. The ending feels incredibly tacked on; but given all the lacklustre ways they could have ended it, the conclusion isn't too bad. Overall; this film is OK with me.

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.

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.