I am not a fan of Bay Watch, but David Hasselhoff did an outstanding job. I believe theater is Hasselhoff's calling. If you can watch this musical with an open mind, and get over the fact that the star has done crappy TV you will realize that he has talent for theater. His performance left me shocked and wanting more. I have watched the musical many times and the performance still amazes me. I first saw the musical in a College English class, Horror Fiction and Film, at Chapman University. I thought the professor was crazy for making us watch this film, but I was wrong. Anyone who is a fan of musical theater will enjoy this. I only wish I heard about this when it was still live. I would have enjoyed seeing it. I hope that Hasselhoff does more theater in the future. There is room for him to improve, but I believe over time he could be an outstanding theater performer.
Add a Review
-
DonJohn8016 January 2007When 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)
-
I'm a Jekyll and Hyde fan and love anything to do with this fantastic story (courtesy of Robert Louis Stevenson), and I never saw the original Broadway play so I had no comparison to make when I watched this on VHS, not DVD.
And from the comments I've read, Hasselhoff is getting a bad rap. He's not at all bad in the role, has good stage presence, can deal with the songs which are in no way memorable to begin with (in fact, the musical's biggest weakness is that all the songs sound alike and all sound very derivative), and he does the separate characters with little more than a change in hairstyle, attitude and voice.
He's getting the sort of disdain always reserved for anyone who comes in as a replacement for someone else--especially if that show is now available worldwide as this video is.
GERARD BUTLER got the same reception when he dared to take on a role that MICHAEL CRAWFORD (with his high tenor voice) seemed to "own" in PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. Butler's acting added new dimension to the part and now he has his own huge fan base based on his decision to "stretch" and assume a role originally written for a higher male voice.
David HASSELHOFF took a chance because he wanted to "stretch", rather than be remembered solely for his BAYWATCH and other TV roles. I saw him years ago in a Jack the Ripper story made for television and I recognized then that he could do very well in more serious roles.
Summing up: Let's face it, this was NEVER a great musical to begin with, but Hasselhoff does a commendable job in a tricky leading role. I was totally unimpressed by the supporting cast. I found all the other performances just adequate with nobody really standing out nor anyone with a voice worth remarking on. As for the songs, no comment. -
Since I was christened into the beauty of Jekyll and Hyde the Musical by Anthony Warlow's sterling performance, I sat down to watch this version with exactly the right attitude. I was drawn to watch it by the pure horror that the thought of David Hasselhoff butchering my favourite musical instilled. I had to see it, because potentially I would laugh harder than I ever had in my life. So suitably, I was there with a friend, some cheap chocolate liqueur, and a projection monitor turning the lounge room wall into the stage.
Some of the casting annoyed me. I guess I'm something of a purist when it comes to period theater, but John being black seems culturally improbable, and the inevitable deepness and timbre to George Merritt's voice made him dominate over Hassellhoff, which turns the character into more of a mentor figure than a friend and equal.
Andrea Rivette's singing in what looked like the world's second tightest corset was amazing to behold, but the depth in her acting was lacking.
Small lyrical changes to a lot of the songs seemed made in an effort to dumb the plot and themes down to make it nice and sachharin, and that reeks of censorship, which I abhor in any form.
What made it for me is exactly what drew me, like a train wreck, to watch.
David Hasselhoff is not a born singer, nor is he likely to become a seasoned veteran of Broadway musical, but I was shocked silent by the intensity of his rendition of the confrontation. It wasn't mind-blowing, but it was a guy who used to drive a talking car doing it, which made it all the more impressive. The makeup and lighting effect used for the sequence was also nicely effective.
Ultimately, I feel I got a solid (if B grade) performance all round. Hasselhoff, I imagine, has fulfilled a lifelong dream, and I raise my glass to him for doing it. -
There are some impressive staging techniques used in this show including: The seamless movement of set pieces on and off stage, shifting mood lighting, and some potentially bombastic songs. Unfortunately, the show takes itself far too seriously. David Hasselhoff can't handle the delicate mix of his role. He is only sporadicly engaging and when he is, you will probably be engaged in laughter. The scene where Jekyll and Hyde duet is perhaps the most ridiculous in the play. At this point, I wondered if this was a comedy and nobody realized. I don't know if any actor could perform this without it being silly. Then, there the super serious Carew(Barrie Ingham) and Utterson(George Merritt) monologues to the audience, which are almost as amusing. And, I must have missed the prostitute and Jekyll's father in Stevenson's book. They are clichés fit for a soap like The Young and The Restless. The two ladies, Coleen Sexton and Andrea Rivette, can sing and easily eclipse Hasselhoff.
-
tigrouh00h0024 August 2003With the coming Extraordinary League of Gentlemen, how could i not be hypnotized by this musical? I came accidentally on it and thought: lets learn more about this dr. Jekyll. I thought at first it was not a musical but a play: the actors were good and the atmosphere was breathtaking.. And that doctor, so convincing! To be honest, i was sure it was David Hasselhoff only at the end when it was actually written!! Even with his imposant body, his sharp face, i couldn't say he was D.H. What a wonderfull surprise! So to answer to a previous post, you'll be impressed even if you're not a D.H. fan! He is really playing it with his guts as well as Jekyll's passion for science as Hyde's lust for destruction! Utterson is also played very skillfully and one of the most funny character in the play. This one conclusion i took from this experience is of course not be rely myself only on the facade of people: Hasselhoff on baywatch on one hand can be more than convincing as Jekyll and Hyde! Go see it for yourself!
-
cwhoward-121 August 2003I agree that David Hasselhoff is not the best choice in the world to play this role. He is not the best singer or actor that the stage has ever scene. However, as Grey Satterfield said, this is a extremely hard role to for any actor and most especially both acting and singing the same part. Even though David is not strong in either, you have got to admire a man who tries, and I believe that David did give it his best effort. And that is admirable. The production is first rate, would have loved to have seen this live. But even for a video they kept it in the traditional theater style. I give it 7/10 stars.
-
I have had the dubious privilege of seeing an excellent production of this profoundly mediocre play. While I'm not a Hoff-Hater, I sincerely doubt that even Al Pacino could improve it. The music is occasionally pleasant, but always highly derivative (it sounds like every other Broadway play ever made); the pop-philosophical mauling of Stephenson's idea is offensively simplistic; the plot "twists" manage to be at once predictable, heavy-handed, and misogynistic (my young niece perceptively mis-observed: "All the womens died").
If you're looking for a good musical, look somewhere else. If you're looking for a good, interesting interpretation of the Jekyll-Hyde story, look to the Christopher Lee / Peter Cushing vehicle "I, Monster", which makes genuinely interesting and creative changes to Stephenson's idea. ("Hyde:Jekyll" becomes "Blake:Marlowe", for example, to highlight the Faustian and gnostic aspects of the story.) It's a typical '60s low-budget screamer, but at that, it has ten times the heart of this vacuous product. -
nrapny-0169420 February 2019The music is magnificent, harmonies are unmatched still to this day. An epic musical classic.
Hasselhoff's Jekyll is god awful and horrible but his Hyde is freekin awesome. So yeah. -
gws-212 January 2003I 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.
-
Clay-238 May 2002I had the pleasure of seeing Robert Cuccioli in the original Broadway production of "Jekyll and Hyde." It was a thrilling and dynamic performance of great caliber, and it contributed to making the show a sizeable hit. However, soon after his departure the producers kept on plugging various has-been stars into the role. One was Jack Wagner, who I also saw, who was terrible, but far worse was David Hasseloff, whose amateurish performance is forever recorded on this video for his embarrassment. He's so bad in so many ways, he almost manages to turn this musical thriller into a musical comedy.
Those who are fans of the show itself might enjoy having the recording for sentimental purposes, but I imagine anyone who has good taste in theater will be quite disappointed by the lead performance.
Go back to "Bay Watch," David. -
Usagi Tsukino 178112 September 2001I am a huge fan of anything that comes off of Broadway, Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, Cats. So basically if there is a VHS available I will buy it.
A while ago Jekyll & Hyde was on Pay-Per-View, and I got it. I sat on the edge of my seat the whole time, totally enraptured by the show infront of me. When it was over I was kicking myself for not getting it on tape, which I found today in a local store and bought. This musical was absolutely one of the best one's I've ever seen in my whole entire life!
David Hasselhoff, was utterly amazing as Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde. The onstage transformation was unbelievable... it was almost like looking at different actors for the two characters.
Everyone else who portrayed, other characters (many people having two) we're also superb. This is a VHS that any Broadway loving/David Hasselhoff fan should add to their collection... you do not want to miss out on it. -
Scott-hind15 October 2014When I heard of a musical version of jekyll and hyde I laughed. When I saw hasslehoff was going to play the lead I groaned. I am pleased to say In both cases my fears where unfounded.
The music itself is one of the more aggressive, dark scores ever added to a musical. Although this does lead to a lack of shade in the play, the plot does demand a certain menace and therefore the aggression can be excused. I would like to make a special mention in honour of Coleen sexton who play lucy. She may have one of the best voices I have ever heard on stage. It also boasts some of the best acting I have ever seen in the confrontation as jekyll and hyde sing a duet.
So... If it so good... Why only a 6? There is one flaw and it's a big one. Hasslehoff. As hyde he is perfect. He looks great, sounds great, and his acting is perfect.
As Dr Jekyll though it's a different story. He acts brilliantly... However he is not a great singer... He isn't bad... But he just doesn't have the ability to sing the big songs to the standard demanded.
If you can look past that it is worth a watch. -
azure_sky28 August 2007While there are a few (and very far between) watchable moments in this show, by and large it is the most ghastly, amateurish production I have ever seen in my life. The stunning music is horribly overshadowed by wooden, stilted acting by the principle characters with few notable exceptions, and excruciatingly bad choreography draw the eye precisely where it is not supposed to go.The acting is painful, Hasselhoff unwatchable, though the direction and the choreography are what really doom what could otherwise have been an incredibly powerful show. And this is not mentioning the chronological anachronisms that pop up all over the place, from clothing not appropriate to the period all the way to accents from the wrong part of London! Pick this up if you are new to musical theater and are looking to expand your knowledge of musicals, but for those of you who know what you're looking at when you look at a show, look elsewhere.
-
When I saw this on the schedule I howled with laughter and my wife prepared to barf on the floor -- Hasselhoff has always been a joke as far as we were concerned. We were absolutely floored to find that he can actually act if given a chance, and has a great voice with tremendous range and power. Who could have guessed?
I read the other comments, often negative, and noticed that most of the slams were from stage & musical afficionados, most of whom had first seen other Broadway leads in the title role. I have no doubt there are some spectacular male leads who have sung this role earlier, and perhaps one day I'll see them also; however, Hasselhoff's performance is excellent, period, and I have gone from thinking of him as a boring, no-talent dork to having a great respect for his acting and his heretofore unsuspected singing ability. His "Hyde" is very reminiscent of Jack Palance's portrayal, and on occasion the facial resemblance is rather eery. One wonders whether it was a deliberate affectation or mere chance..
His Baywatch and Knight Rider shows were pure, gag-me-with-a-spoon drivel, completely unwatchable by normal human earthlings. But this .... the man was hiding some serious talent -- probably there was little one could do with those awful TV roles.
This experience reminds me very much of the first time I saw Andy Griffith in A FACE IN THE CROWD -- and realized that behind those stupid "Andy of Mayberry" grins lay one of the finest dramatic actors in the business. Frankly, I felt cheated. I'm glad Griffith enjoyed the success and money, but I feel genuine sorrow for all the other dramatic roles he COULD have given us. Now, ditto for Hasselhoff. -
TheLittleSongbird1 June 2014Jekyll and Hyde: The Musical as a musical is an entertaining pleasure, the story is respectful to the classic original story and the songs are great if with a few derivative numbers. This performance was actually pretty good if majorly flawed. Some of the ensembles sound scrappy and under-rehearsed with some of it sounding unsure and with times where rhythmically it could have been more precise. Most of the direction is fine, though there are a few anachronistic touches, parts that did feel too busy and the transformation sequence is clumsily handled. The most problematic aspect was David Hasselhoff, some have said he is better than he is given credit for and most have said he's bad. For me he was more inconsistent than anything else, he is to be applauded for taking on something he really wanted to do but one can't help thinking that despite the brave effort he was not well-suited for the difficult iconic dual role. He is better as Mr Hyde than Dr Jekyll, as Hyde he is entertaining and with some shades of chills though he does overdo it but as Jekyll he is both bland and hammy with facial expressions that are so forced it's off-putting. Didn't care for his voice either, some of the big notes are decent and there are moments where it does sound nice but much of it is very unsteady- with excessive vibrato that it sounds bleaty- and strained, especially in This is the Moment(which started off breathy and un-vocal but got a little better later). However, the costumes and sets are authentic and beautiful, complete with lighting that compliments the atmosphere very well. The photography is good too and the make-up is chillingly effective. The orchestra play with power, control and nuance throughout with tempos that are appropriate for the moods of each song. The choreography is neither overblown or staid, instead a very nice in between, and the stage direction on the whole allows the atmosphere of the story to come through and it is true in spirit to the show and the story. The supporting performances were great, especially Andrea Rivette, who makes for a poised and heart-breaking Emma complete with a voice that has much depth and beauty, Colleen Sexton, who is very charming with an equally beautiful light voice, and George Merritt, loved his rich mellow tone and how he was able to tell so much while doing little(with any look and gesture speaking volumes). Martin Van Treuren takes on a dual role and in a way that the two characters are so different that you are shocked that it's the same person. Barrie Ingham is also good. To conclude, pretty good though with an inconsistent Hasselhoff. 6/10 Bethany Cox
-
gavynhelfyre3 August 2002I've seen this musical 11 times so far (which by the standards of this shows fans isn't much) I've seen every man to play Jekyll on Broadway and the national tours. So, I think it goes without saying that I know a little something about this show and the quality of the performance I should expect from it.
First let me say that Hasselhoffs performance is not as bad as it could be (no he saved that for the shows final performance on Broadway), but it is darn close. Having seen the other actors to play the role, I can only assume that Hasselhoff either didn't read the script, didn't care, or is an even more wretched actor than his stint on Baywatch would allude to.
Don't misunderstand me. This production which is captured here does have several things working for it (namely Hasselhoffs lovely costars Andrea Rivette and Coleen Sexton), and you are still seeing a few members of the original cast (Barrie Ingham and George Merritt). Both of which make it wholely worth your time to view if you keep the remote control handy to fast forward through Hasselhoffs songs.
If you have no other option, watch this Video/DVD to get at least some sense of what may be the best musical of the past decade, but look past Hasselhoff. If you really want to get a sense for the show though, find a local production and see it live with at least a semi-compitent actor. If you do the latter, I guarantee that you'll fall in love with the show. If you do the former, well, just try your best to get past Hasselhoff. -
Being a fan of Broadway musicals like Cats, The Phantom of the Opera, Love Never Dies, Les Miserable, Hamilton, Crazy For You. I heard about this musical from watching snippets on YouTube of South Korean production of Jekyll & Hyde and from that I wanted to watch it.
So, this is the first time watching Jekyll & Hyde the musical. I was amazed by David Hasselhoff's singing voice. I didn't even know he can sing but I grew up watching him in Knightrider but never watched him in Baywatch. The musical is great and the sets are amazing. The cast is great as well as the songs. -
psederichk30 January 2019The staging is absolutely spectacular.
I had the concept recording on cd and loved the music, so when i saw the video I grabbed it up in spite of Hasselhoff (who's performance is mediocre at best and only slightly undershadowed by his vocal performance).
I dont understand the re-writes from the concept recording, so many great oportunities missed.
The set and staging created amazing visuals, too bad the performance didnt live up to the potential. -
edgeofheaven1810 April 2003Jekyll & Hyde is probably one of the most amazing musical ever made. Great show based on a classic tale. Extraordinary songs, especially "This Is The Moment" and "Someone Like You". When I found out this musical was actually made for DVD, I rushed out to get a copy. When I saw David Hasselhoff was cast as Jekyll & Hyde, I had my doubts. A Baywatch lifeguard to a Broadway Musical Star??? Anyhow, I set aside my doubts and watch the show, I was soooo disappointed by Hasselhoff's performance in "This Is The Moment". He completely ruin the song by over-act in the scene. He really wasn't suit for a Broadway Star. He doesn't have the depth and the talent to be one. I really want to kick him after "This Is The Moment".
Despite the horrendous performance by Hasselhoff, the supporting cast was wonderful. Especially Coleen Sexton, who played the role of Lucy Harris. She was breathtaking. So good beyond words can describe.
Andrea Rivette who portrayed the Emma Carew was also wonderful.
Go out and get a copy. The show is worthy to watch. Just don't have too much hope for Hasselhoff. Set aside his lack of Broadway talent and concentrate on the supporting casts, then you will love the show. -
onthatnote11 July 2008This version of this musical is OK to watch once, but unlike other musicals I like, I will not watch it a second time. Hasselhoff's singing is OK, but not great. His acting was surprisingly good, though, in this difficult split personality character. Interesting to see the star of "Baywatch" and "Knight Rider" (never saw the former, always watched the latter as a kid) on the stage. He is better on the stage by far.
Coleen Sexton's singing as Lucy was terrific and energized. Andrea Rivette's singing as Emma was wonderful. The supporting cast was very good.
The music was great. The music was the reason why I rented this in the first place. I have a voice studio and several of my students have sung selections from this musical without me having seen it and knowing the context in which they were sung. Very memorable solos and the duet "In His Eyes" really showcases the two leading ladies.
I question the director's artistic interpretation of having people in a surreal or interpretive background. It seemed like it was just busy work with no contribution to the story. This happened five times and three of them really detracted from the scene rather than supplementing it, especially since it was always during a solo. Come on--let the character have the stage all to himself! Also, there was one rainy day scene and one had a red umbrella in the midst of all these black and dark blue umbrellas and dark lighting with a darker set. It really stuck out with no apparent artistic value.
The sets were excellent and I did enjoy the camera work, which was effective, I thought. Sometimes camera work of a live production can be distracting. The choreography many times didn't impress me, however, and I found it to be confusing to the eye.
Just a warning for you fellow conservative parents out there: There were a few times that the choice of language in the dialog and lyrics made me very uncomfortable. And for some of you, the portrayal of the prostitute house might make you fast forward. The murder scenes were done in good taste, however. They were quite effective, but did not contain any bloody gore. -
I love this musical. I am a huge fan of all things Jekyll and Hyde (particularly the original novella by Robert Louise Stevenson) but this production of the musical really did not work. I sometimes get out my copy and watch it for a laugh just because David Hasselhoff is so bad. David seemed to have a lot of potential, don't get me wrong. He looks great as both Jekyll and Hyde and his acting even was OK, although it was a little too hammed up for my taste. The problem is his singing. It seems as though he is racing the orchestra, who are having trouble keeping up with him. Because of this, all meaning in the lyrics is stripped away and the songs are left as merely a shell of what they should be. His style of singing is also a tad strange. His notes just don't sound right. It also seems that he relied more on lighting and hair to differentiate between the characters of Jekyll and Hyde. However, like I said before, when he is acting without singing he's not all that bad, though I doubt he would do a better job than Bob Cuccioli or most other Broadway leading men who have taken the part. The rest of the cast do a fine job but it seems that none have that great a grasp on their characters. A real problem is accents. None of the accents sound quite right and it is really irritating. The best performance would have to be from Coleen Sexton as Lucy. She sounded great, looked great and acted OK.
The set and lighting of the production are quite impressive and each do a good job of setting the mood of the production. The orchestra is great but unfortunately has the hard task of keeping up with Hasselhoff (maybe after all the slow motion in Baywatch he took a vow to do everything at super speeds.) This production is worth seeing for any fan of the musical who is yet to see a professional production of it but I refuse to believe it is the best that Broadway has to offer of Jekyll and Hyde. -
I did the play Jekyll and Hyde about 5 months ago. I was the lead for this play, and I had to watch this movie with the rest of the cast and I must say, it really was not that helpful. At least not on my part. I'll get to that but first some of the good things.
The people in the cast did a good job portraying their characters. Most of them were from the original cast when the play came out. George Merritt and Barrie Ingham were good as Utterson and Carew. I was also very impressed with Coleen Sexton's portrayal of Lucy. No one will ever beat Linda Eder, in my opinion, but Sexton doesn't do a bad job. It was just too bad she couldn't have sang "Bring on the Men", instead of "Good and Evil." I didn't know she was only 20 when doing this show. Andrea Rivette also did a good job playing Emma too. I would give the whole cast a solid B for effort.
The one thing our theater group thought that was stupid was David Hasselhoff playing the lead of Jekyll. I give credit to Hasselhoff for his Hollywood career, and for being a babe magnet on Baywatch, but this guy is no Broadway performer. At least not in this role. Every time I listened to this guy sing I kept thinking what Wildhorn was thinking about when he hired him. Was he trying to turn this into a comedy. If so, the joke was not funny. I understand that he was trying to make money, but putting faith in Hasselhoff was the worst call to make. He made a horses*** of the role. The only song he sang decently was "Lost in the Darkness." Another problem I had was that most of the singing parts in the play were cut out of the show with stupid boring dialog that would put any J&H fan to sleep. I would give Hasselhoff an F for this performance, but I respect the fact that he was trying something new so i'll give him a D-.
Overall I give the performance a C. I wish Wildhorn could have hired Anthony Warlow to do this show, he was fantastic in the "The Gothic Musical Thriller soundtrack of Jekyll and Hyde." He was the perfect guy for this role. It's just too bad that he lives in Australia. I just hope Hasselhoff never plays the role of Jekyll again. -
Dr. Ed-27 January 2003badly acted..... excrutiating version of the lousy musical. Hideous central performance by David Hasselhoff, annoying staging and orchestration, boring sets, and a third-rate cast all add up to a quick turn-off. And not one decent song in the show. Bad, bad, bad!
-
JadeEagle22425 October 2003Jekyll and Hyde is one of my all-time favorite musicals. I've seen it on stage many times and have every recording made (even the old Colm Wilkinson-Linda Eder concept album!). I was given this video as a gift and when I read that David Hasselhoff was starring, I had the same reaction that I'm sure many of you did: "The Baywatch guy? You've got to be kidding me."
...but I have to admit, I was pleasantly surprised. I think many people wanted so badly to hate David Hasselhoff in this that they automatically wrote him off and didn't give him a chance. Was he the best Jekyll/Hyde I've seen? Well, no. His singing voice was sort of inconsistent. There were times when it really reached out with dramatic power, and other times when it suffered from a little too much vibrato for my taste. Believe it or not, it was his *acting* (surprise, surprise!) that impressed me the most. I think that Mr. Hasselhoff's talent was perhaps wasted on screen. He does a fine job as a stage actor, and has obviously come a long way from his Baywatch days. He seems to be more at home in front of a live audience. His Hyde impressed me the most. He shows a skillful use of the eyes and body language.
Hasselhoff is surrounded by a talented supporting cast. I like Coleen Sexton's rather cute, sweet portrayal of Lucy. It offers a unique contrast to Linda Eder's sultry rendition. My only criticism of Sexton's performance is a personal preference issue: she belts too much when she sings, and extends her belting range too high. It sounds painful to me.
Andrea Rivette is a class act as Emma Carew, Jekyll's fiancee. Her voice is beautiful, and her poise perfect for the role. George Merritt and Barrie Ingham were outstanding as John Utterson and Sir Danvers Carew, respectively. I absolutely loved Merritt's voice. The rich, deep quality of it carried over to his speaking lines as well.
Overall, a good effort by all.