Henry Jekyll (Anthony Perkins) experiments with cocaine, and the experiments have gotten out of control, transforming him into the hideous Jack Hyde. As Hyde he searches the London streets at night for his prey in whorehouses and opium dens.Early in the film, we see a blade against an eye. This is a very impressive effect, clearly looking like a real eye and areal blade. (I mean, it is not "Un Chien Andalou", but what is?) There is one scene with a bath house full of several nude men, one of whom is in a rather suggestive pose. I am surprised this passed the censors. While not sexual, this seemed a bit provocative to me. And what purpose did it serve? Was this just a way of showing the paradoxes and contradictions in Victorian society? Is this an anti-drug film? I would say no, as it is not remotely a realistic portrayal of cocaine addiction. They could have just as easily invented a new drug for the purposes of the film. And yet, they did not do so -- so why single out cocaine?

This is the nth variation on the Jekyll/Hyde perennial that I've watched – it's not among the better versions, but nor is it quite as bad as its maligned reputation would suggest! An unhinged Anthony Perkins (joining a distinguished roster of actors to tackle the dual role) is always worth watching: his disruption of a society dinner is quietly effective – as Dr. Jekyll expounds on his theory about the power inherent in a personality unbound by laws and traditions, and of its imminent emergence. The Hyde make-up does not extend to much other than making Perkins look somewhat younger, rather effeminate and vaguely sinister. The overall look of the film, retaining the period setting of Stevenson's original novel, is fairly pleasing – within the limitations of its budget and the exploitation angle it clearly aims for (what with the presence of blood and sleaze galore).Unsurprisingly, the narrative attaches a mother/whore complex to the main character – not to mention the fact that Perkins' Hyde adopts the characteristics one usually associates with Jack The Ripper (following in the footsteps of Hammer's DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE [1971])! By the way, the film was co-produced by Harry Alan Towers – with his wife/former starlet Maria Rohm credited as Associate Producer! I have still another version to check out – the recent 2002 production released on DVD (as a SE no less!) by Alpha, and may even get to MARY REILLY (1996) before the month is out...

To be honest, I have never seen or read the original story. Maybe this is a good thing, I don't know. As far as I can understand it gets the basic idea and only harshly does it re-make previous versions. Performances and film pace is overall OK. No stupid subplots and all, even some smiles raise from time to time. Due to some erotic scenes involving prostitutes, it can easily be characterized sexploitation, and as far as erotic stimulation is concerned, it scores quite high. Moreover having Anthony Perkins starring in it, it could easily be loved by horror completists or cultists. All in all, I had a nice time.

Anthony Perkins finally stars in remake of the Dr. Jekyll / Mr. Hyde story about a timid sexually repressed doctor who is transformed into a vicious, sleazy killer from time to time slashing the throats of hookers. This film is only of interest for yet another one of Perkins truly demented performances, some fine costumes & sets, and a few nice directorial touches. Be forewarned though, this remake is very graphic both sexually and violence wise.