Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

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

rob30316 I saw this show twice on its pre-Broadway tour and while it may not have been Sondheim, it was solid, and it was a lot of fun. This version is a tragic mess. I'd heard that the Broadway version didn't compare to what it used to be, but I was shocked at how awful it became. The best numbers are either gone (Alive!) or missing their best parts (Lisa Carew) or given new arrangements that totally ruin the song (His Work and Nothing More). Yes, those are all songs from the first act - I'll force myself to watch the second at some point, maybe.Now the fun part...Hasselhof needs to be served a cease and desist against acting. He has a surprisingly strong voice, but his lack of acting ability trumps that. At best, when he's singing, he looks like he's struggling to remember his lines. When he talks...oh my God. It's painful.In a way, it's perfect that Hasselhof is in this. J & H was a very promising musical, if somewhat campy, until it hit New York. I have my suspicions that the producer and accountant were planning on flying to Rio when it failed on opening night.It's really, really, REALLY bad. Unless you thought the Broadway version was decent - even with David Hasselhof - avoid it at all costs.I don't think I've ever ranked a movie as a 1 before. It's that bad.

DonJohn80 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)

divaclv I'm not a great fan of "Jekyll & Hyde," but neither do I find Frank Wildhorn's cult-musical take on Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" completely unwatchable. There's a lot of problems with the work--particularly Leslie Bricusse's awkward lyrics (most egregious line: "What I choose to do is decided by me." Huh?)--but it can be entertaining in the right hands, the music theater equivalent of a fun but silly action movie. Unfortunately, the Broadway Television Network recording of the original New York production leaves us in the hands of David Hasselhoff, and both the show and the audience suffers as a result.Hasselhoff came in near the end of "Jekyll & Hyde's" Broadway run in an attempt to bolster flagging audience numbers with a little name recognition. Name recognition is about all Hasselhoff brings to the dual role of the well-intentioned doctor and his vicious alter ego. As Jekyll, his performance is distressingly wooden; as Hyde, he mugs so ridiculously that he inspires giggles rather than shudders. And then when you think it can't get any worse, he opens his mouth to sing--and his shaky, mediocre warbling sucks away all the life from what should be some of the shows most dramatic moments (particularly the climax, a neat little solo/duet between the title characters).It's unfortunate that Hasselhoff's presence irreparably damages "Jekyll and Hyde," because the rest of the cast is actually fairly decent. Andrea Rivette (as Jekyll's high-society fiancée) and Coleen Sexton (as a dance-hall girl who becomes a victim of Hyde's lust) are a delight to watch and hear in the female leads; their duet "In His Eyes" is the most dramatically effective moment in the production. Barrie Ingham and George Merritt also do nice work in roles they already immortalized on the cast recording. The rest of the cast makes do with what they can, but "Jekyll and Hyde" needs a strong lead in order to really work, and Hasselhoff ruins the musical's hope of succeeding on any level except an unintentional comedy.

gws-2 I nearly decided not to post my remarks because my reaction to this video is so similar to that of many other posters: It's a good show that is, alas, nearly ruined by the presence of the inadequate David Hasselhoff as Jekyl-Hyde. His singing is below average, his acting is atrocious, and he moves with all the grace of a water buffalo. Hasselhoff's weaknesses were made more noticeable than they might otherwise have been because the production was otherwise very good. The two female leads, Coleen Sexton, as Lucy, and Andrea Rivette, as Emma Carew, are excellent. Sexton and Rivette have one duet that was moving and beautifully sung. In fairness to Hasselhoff, I must confess that it seems to me that few actor singers have the talent to really pull off the dauntingly demanding Jekyl-Hyde role. Len Cariou or George Hearn could have done the job both dramatically and musically – 25 years ago. But these days, I don't know who could do it. I like this musical and would like to see it performed with someone in the title role who can really sing and act. I gave this video 6 out of 10, but I cannot really recommend it because Hasselfoff's presence makes it, on balance, not worth the candle.