drama_chick312
I went into this as an almost impartial observer (I'm a theatre buff, so I've got some judgementalness...) and was really looking forward to seeing Hasselhof blow me away. I was prepared.I spent the entire time making fun of the movie. Emma is ridiculously amazing, Lucy is pretty good (she's a wee bit nazzle), but when the manservant did better in the scene than Hasselhof, it was just sad. He does funny hand things and his movements are really awkward. Moreso was his singing. Some people like wavering around a note, but in Broadway, you need to hit it and stay on it. He uses his hair to tell the two characters apart instead of a more drastic character shift. Jekkyl and Hyde need to have soaring vocal moments that help to separate them. The confrontation is just comical. that's all there is to it. He's got half his hair pinned back and half in his face and kind of talk sings through these fantastic musical runs. (you can tell that there's more to the music) His performance was high school. at best. I know he tried, but some people are better on the stage and others work better on film. And not a filmed stage performance. Watch it for a good time.
Jim Dixon
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.
Charles Cross
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.
lemmingski
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.
AD
