The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

This is easily my favorite version of the Robert Louis Stevenson monster tale. Jack Palance is ideally cast as Mr Hyde. He is physically strong, athletic, menacing, and quite vicious when crossed.Legendary make up artist Dick Smith created Hyde's Satanic look. Palance's Dr Jekyll is effective as well.He plays him as socially awkward and uncomfortable with his emotions. An excellent supporting cast includes Denholm Elliot, Leo Genn, Oskar Homolka, and Torn Thatcher. Billie Whitelaw plays Gwyn as sexy,vulnerable and the object of Hyde's sadistic lust.Dan Curtis became a master of Gothic story telling and he gets strong performances from everyone involved. He capture's the look of London in the 1880's with its foggy and gas lit back streets with help from set dresser Fred Brown.Robert Colbert's eerie theme music would later show up in Curtis's Dark ShadowsA chillingly good story and outstanding performances make this one a must for any horror film connoisseur.8 out of 10.

The perfect supplement to the melodramatic soap-operatic March version of 1932, that polluted so many later versions. It's the first to satisfactorily solve the two main difficulties: the make-up and the motive. The big problem is how to make Hyde look sufficiently different from Jekyll without turning him into something that in a real world would be caged in a zoo. The Tracy version is the one extreme--the fact no one recognizes Hyde as Jekyll after a 3-day bender is absurd. The March is the other, especially toward the end when Hyde becomes positively simian (and March has all but given up trying to enunciate around those godawful teeth). This version solves the problem neatly, by casting an actor (Jack Palance) who starts out looking more like Hyde than Jekyll. In fact Dan Curtis has said they used almost as much make-up to soften Palance's appearance for Jekyll as they did to turn him into Hyde. As to motive: this version cuts out the romance that in earlier versions provided the impetus for Jekyll drinking the potion, and substitutes a motive that even Stevenson didn't have the courage to recognize. As Devlin sums it up at the end: "Hyde was just a chemical concoction. The real monster was Jekyll."

This is one of the four Dan Curtis TV horror films that I have seen. Even when Curtis himself does not direct it, Charles Jarrott does a good job. It's a shame that this is only a TV movie. As a big budget film this would be great watching. Story is good. It is both faithful to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, and it has take that woman that movie needs(they did it also in 1931 and 1941 versions in Hollywood but they are not faithful to the novel). No doubt: Dr. Jekyll's and mister Hyde's character's are the most faithful one's to the novel. Dr. Jekyll is almost middle aged man how does not have a girl in he's life and how is very shy. Mr. Hyde is cruel and really evil man. Yes, man! The makeup(made by expert Dick Smith) make's him look like a human and that what he was in novel, really ugly and evil human. Not any ape looking or gorilla.Actors: Jack Palance is wonderful as Jekyll/Hyde. He really makes them just as they are in the book. If there would not have been Fredrick March(in 1931's version)there is nobody that could be as good as Palance. Also Denholm Elliott(RAIDERS OF LOST ARK) as Jekyll's friend and Billie Whitelaw(THE OMEN)as the unlucky girl are doing good job.Really good version. To all Jekyll & Hyde or Dan Curtis fan's.

I remember seeing this one split up over two late nights on ABC in the early 1970s. I was mesmerized and excited; I've longed to see the film again and recently got my chance! As soon as I found out it was available on DVD I bought it. Lots to be nostalgic about here: for instance, that wonderful videotape quality of the visuals (even more vivid now that the thing is out on DVD). Jack Palance hams it up as Hyde: a friend who saw the movie with me said he looked like a muppet during the scene at Tessie's music hall! But his Dr. Jekyll is a brilliant character, full of the best kind of noble suffering that a great tragic hero endures. I loved every minute of it. And Robert Cobert's music--all of which was originally used for the great _Dark Shadows_ series--is more haunting than ever. Any fan of _Dark Shadows_ will love this _Jekyll and Hyde_; and any horror fan should enjoy seeing it, too!