Woodyanders Uptight and controversial therapist Dr. Jackie Stevenson (an excellent performance by the ravishing Julian Wells) concocts an experimental serum that separates the pure and lustful halves of the female psyche. After first trying out the serum on depressed patient Martine (a fine and appealing portrayal by the adorable Misty Mundae), Jackie decides to use the serum on herself and transforms into Heidi, an aggressive and voracious lesbian who roams the streets looking for lovely young ladies to seduce. Heidi meets and falls for Dawn (also played by Mundae), a sweet hooker who may not be as innocent as she seems. Director Tony Marsiglia, working from a crafty and inspired script by Bruce G. Hallenbeck, relates the engrossing story at a brisk pace, maintains a generally serious tone throughout, does an ace job of creating and sustaining a downright intoxicating sensuous and erotic atmosphere, further spices things up with a sly sense of wickedly funny humor, and, of course, delivers a satisfying plenitude of tasty distaff skin and scorching hot girl-on-girl action. The strong and convincing chemistry between Wells and Mundae keeps the picture humming; it's not just expectedly arousing, but also surprisingly tender and moving. Moreover, Boz Tennyson sleazes it up deliciously as Jackie's foul lout husband Richard, the stunning Andrea Davis burns up the screen as delectable talk show host Ingrid, and enticing redhead Ruby Larocca has a fairly minor, but still cool role as timid maid Paula. Dang Lenawae's crisp cinematography boasts lots of atmospheric film noir style lighting and gives the movie a pleasing polished look. Don Mike's lively and neatly varied score blends classical music, bouncy mambo, and straight-out rock into a heady and thrilling mix. Best of all, this film even comes complete with a sound and provocative central theme on deep repression, lustful addiction, and forbidden love and passion. And the genuinely startling dark twist ending packs a real jolting punch, too. Well worth a watch.

The_Void 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.

movieman_kev Seduction cinema usually do groaningly awful soft-core spoofs of mainstream movies (Ie. Spiderbabe, play-mate of the Apes, Lord of the G-string, etc.) But this lesbian soft-core about a female Dr. Jekyll coming up with a way to unleash the female libido is played mostly straight (pardon the pun) Not to say that the story is anything but an excuse for the simulated sex, just that it's not jokey. And thats no surprise as Director, Tony Marsiglia tends to distance himself from spoof as well in the better plotted "Sin Sisters". The sex scenes in this one are pretty hot as well. And I hope the girl who plays the maid, gets more famous. if for no other reason that then so can fix those teeth of hers.The Goods: 6 sex scenes (solo, F/F, bondage, orgy) stripteaseBabe of the Movie: Julian Wells is hot Seduction Cinemas limited edition DVD Extras: an interview with Misty Mundae & Julian Wells (8 minutes); Making of documentary ( nearly 80 minutes?!!?); theatrical trailer; and the usual myriad of Trailers for other Seduction Cinema titles. The second disk is just a music soundtrack CD My Grade: C+

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)