The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
NR | 07 January 1968 (USA)
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Trailers

In this Dan Curtis production of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic, Jack Palance stars as Dr. Henry Jekyll, a scientist experimenting to reveal the hidden, dark side of man, who, in the process of his experiment, releases a murderer from within himself.

Reviews
jacobjohntaylor1

This a great movie. It is very scary. If you like really scary movies then you need to see this movie. Doctor Jekyll discover that man has to souls one good one and one evil. He creates a formula that brings out his evil side. His evil side starts to take him over. This is a very scary movie. It is very well written. The acting is great. The special effects. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. Jack P.a.l.a.n.c.e who played the part of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde was also in Dracula play the lead part. He was one of the best actors of this time. Dracula was his best movie. This would be his second best movie. This movie is a must see.

... View More
Christian Tsoutsouvas

Robert Louis Stevenson's book was more of detective story than anything else, hence its called "The Strange CASE of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". It is about Dr Lanyon hearing of these unusual and horrific events and trying to piece them together, and in the final few chapters (Jekyll's letters) the story is finally told. As a book, that was very interesting, though as a film this would have been rather dull, and it is much more exciting to see these events unfold on a screen.The story is very well-known, a scientist splits his personalities and creates an inhuman tyrannical demon that destroys the lives of both of them as well as many others. Only in the book Jekyll invented the drug because he thought that as every man had only one life and two sides, it is impossible to leave a life that satisfies the urges of both of these sides. So he splits them and tries to lead to separate lives, each undisturbed by the other, though of course he fails. Here it is merely out of reckless curiosity, he does something purely because he can without stopping to think if he should.It also suggests the idea that Dr Jekyll is responsible for Hyde's murders, not Hyde. This is because Hyde isn't a whole person, therefore he can't be judged as a real person or held responsible for his actions. Hyde is the dark side of Jekyll, and nothing about Hyde wasn't already inside the doctor. Jekyll should never have empowered him and let him run loose. I would agree with this.A brilliant display of fine performances and dialogue, as well as some very interesting imagery, Dan Curtis' adaptation is a delight.In particular, Jack Palance is extraordinary in both roles. Showing us carelessness and selfishness and in the end fear and desperation in Jekyll as well as impulsiveness, anger and just pure evil in Hyde.Outstanding! Particularly towards the end.

... View More
slothropgr

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."

... View More
rob_h

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!

... View More