Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1973)

That was an excellent one.

So much average

best movie i've ever seen.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The concept of musicalizing R. L. Stevenson' classic horror novella must have been as strange as making Jekyll the handsomer of the two personas in Hammer Films' disappointing 1960 version. Also, the fact that I have been waiting to watch this particular (and quite rare – despite a one-off Yuletide screening of it ages ago on local TV which I missed) adaptation for 30 years – ever since I read about it in Alan Frank's "Monsters And Vampires" book, I was prepared to be let down by it. However, Lionel Bart's unmemorable score notwithstanding, it offers not just a splendid cast well engaged with the material but enough 'new' additions to make the whole affair a delightful concoction (pun intended). Kirk Douglas' Dr. Jekyll is a Canadian immigrant in London who is seeking a cure for mental illness; Stanley Holloway is his loyal butler Poole; Susan Hampshire is Jekyll's long-suffering high society fiancée; Sir Michael Redgrave is her disapproving father; Donald Pleasence is a low-life showing Mr. Hyde the ropes in the night spots of Soho; Susan George and a young Judi Bowker are Hyde's protégées/victims. There are no heated "Good vs. Evil" discussions here (Jekyll's biggest faux-pas in the eyes of society here is arriving on a bicycle for tea!); he decides to drink his own formula after he is refused to try it out on the inmates of the local asylum and, unaccountably, keeps a vial of it ready for use in his laboratory; Hyde takes to visiting the Houses of Parliament and pelt MPs with fruit and vegetables!; the arrested Hyde wakes up in prison as the good doctor and is immediately sprung; Jekyll is haunted by multiple visions of Hyde in his laboratory when he decides to kill him off; George does not expire from the beatings of her 'protector' but loses her mind (after being taken on a midnight stroll to visit her own grave!); it is footman Pleasence himself who blows Jekyll's cover – at which point the doctor has the mother of all meltdowns in front of everybody and jumps at Hampshire's throat having transformed himself one last time into Hyde.

Here's a very unlikely and peculiar fright feature: an early 70's NBC-TV musical adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic Victorian-era novella with an unusually cast Kirk Douglas in the dual role of the good-hearted, blandly respectable Dr. Jekyll and his evil, lusty, gleefully immoral and animalistic id-run-amok alter ego Mr. Hyde. What's most surprising about this audaciously imaginative enterprise is how to a sizable degree it works extremely well. There's no denying that the schizophrenic titular part is any true actor's dream role; Douglas clearly knows this and gladly sinks his teeth into the part, playing the two wildly contrasting characters with lip-smacking brio. The rest of the cast is made up of top-drawer British thespians: Susan Hampshire radiates considerable charm as Jekyll's fiancé, Sir Michael Redgrave portrays Hampshire's prim'n'proper gentleman father to stuffy perfection, Donald Pleasence simply delights as a petty, scraggly street peddler, Susan George has a grand bawdy time as a fiercely proud and blithely naughty saloon showgirl, and Stanley Holloway displays an appropriate amount of concern as Jekyll's loyal, worried butler.Sherman Yellen's script astutely captures the repressive mores and scientific curiosity which defined late 19th century London. The lavish costumes and fog-shrouded sets vividly evoke the period. The score by Lionel Bart, Mel Mandell and Norman Sachs is rather hit-or-miss, supplying a decidedly mixed bag of tunes which range from mediocre and forgettable to lively and enjoyable. The better songs are good, jaunty fun, distinguished by especially catchy and witty lyrics. The cast belt out the songs with terrifically infectious aplomb; it's a real treat to see Douglas, Pleasence and the underrated George cheerfully rip into their numbers. Alas, there are a few glaring flaws which gum things up to a fair extent: pedestrian, workmanlike direction by David Winters (who later helmed the laughably bad Joe Spinell psycho vehicle "The Last Horror Film"), flat cinematography, and a blurry, rough-on-the-eyes shot-on-video look that results in an ugly and unappealing visual texture. These faults asides, this picture still holds up as an admirably fresh and novel take on an often-told hoary old chestnut creepy tale.

If `Oliver!' was Lionel Bart's `Sgt. Pepper,' then `Dr. J & Mr. H' was his `Let It Be.'But I don't blame him nor the brilliant cast for the dullness of this made-in-the-UK-for-NBC production. It would never have been made in the first place if some ratings-hungry hack at 30 Rock wasn't desperate to sell an idea.At the time PBS' `Masterpiece Theater' was scoring Sunday night ratings airing the opulent British costume serials then being made. Said hack had the idea of putting a famous Yank in that sea of British accents. They even made sure they cast Susan Hampshire, who was in just about everyone of those serials, plus some Brits the American audience knew from the movies (Donald Pleasence, Stanley Holloway, Michael Redgrave.) The guy from `Oliver!' has some other songs? And he's broke? Great! Get him, too! Have it ready by such & such date!It was hyped to the nines in the U.S. media, only to crash in the ratings and the columns. I know of this only because of on-line research; I was fascinated why I'd never heard of such a teaming of talent. I even bought an old copy via eBay; I found myself yawning and fast-forwarding.Apparently, great players alone don't make a team; the coach must know what he'll do with them. If they're going to play on their home ground, it helps if they play for their home crowd, too. (`Covington Cross' flopped for the same reason.)

In my opinion this is an excellent remake of the classic story. Kirk Douglas in the role of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his evil counterpart Mr. Edward Hyde, is as good as Fredric March was in the 1931 film, and better than Spencer Tracy in the 1941 version.And Susan George is better for the part of two bit hooker than both Miriam Hopkins (1931) and Ingrid Bergman (1941).Only blemish is the singing, which does not contribute to the atmosphere but almost destroys the tension and excitement.Overall though a very good enjoyable film.