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.

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."

I remember the television broadcast and knew of Palance at that time, but I didn't have much to compare performances or know what to look for.I just remember it was an outstanding production with full credit going to Palance in the lead role.then last week eureka!! I found the DVD in a 2nd hand shop and snatched it up right away.the devilishness and morphing from Jekyll to Hyde was incredible. it won a batch of Emmy's and its no wonder. Jack Palance was a very gifted actor and had a certain honesty about him, a dedication to his craft that goes beyond the adulation and wealth other hollywooden types seek.and that thing about push ups at the Oscars will go down in the history of entertainment. very inspirational too, a man in his 80s doing 1 arm push ups on live TV !! thank you Mr Palance for many years of tremendous entertainment and this is certainly among them. if you have a chance to see this film do so.

Jack Palance seems made for this role. As the mild mannered Henry Jekyll, Palance is subdued, allowing none of his usual acting intensity to mar the characterization. As Hyde, Palance comes alive as he does in many films, relishing his own evil (Dracula, Barrabas, Scrooge). This film's focus is not on the horrifying transformation from Jekyll to Hyde that you expect to see. In fact, you don't see the first one, and Jekyll only learns about it by people telling him what happened the night before when Hyde appeared.The makeup for Hyde is not drastically different from Palance's own appearance; he is ugly but not hideous. In fact, he looks, dresses, and behaves like a womanizing Cary Grant on a drunken rampage. He has fun drinking and whoring and giving everyone something to talk about later, but then he begins to take over Jekyll's personality. Denholm Elliot is Devlin, Jekyll's friend and "savior".I've only seen the Barrymore version in comparison. Barrymore is a much more monstrous Hyde, but both versions are excellent.