Very well executed

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Charming and brutal

Absolutely brilliant

Ever since seeing this TV remake decades ago, I have been a continual fan. In my opinion, this is the single best screen adaptation of the Robert Lewis Stevenson classic ever made. I have seen the greatest actors in the world perform the role, from Fredrick March to Spencer Tracy, and although they were all superb, the often overlooked Jack Palance SHINED in the role, using every bit of his experience to breathe life into this dusty morality play. First, I appreciated their choice of using minimal makeup on him, letting his acting carry the day to breathtaking effect, thanks to the efforts of the iconic Dick Smith. I recall the Tracy version looking so incredibly heavy that he looked like a cross between a deranged monkey and a Neanderthal. But what was so thrilling is how Palance balanced that thin line between civility and crude evil with the grace of a mountain goat, always entertaining, but never going over the top of believability. The way he played both roles was an exercise in restraint. Better yet was the SUPERB all-British cast of seasoned stage and film performers they surrounded him with, including a terrific Billie Whitelaw as the victimized dance hall girl (who also played the demonic nanny in an equally excellent, "The Omen"), a superb Denholm Elliot as the long-suffering best friend, and even a memorable cameo by the great Welsh stage and screen star, Tessie O'Toole, in the most memorable musical number of the entire film. But the only reason that I did not give this wonderful production a well-deserved "ten," was the rather hokey use of video that the producer, Dan Curtis, decided to use (to his utter shame) instead of shooting it on film. Since video was in its infancy at the time and used only in TV, I suppose that his familiarity with the medium was one reason to utilize it, its incredibly inexpensive cost another major factor. But unfortunately, the entire film suffered as a result. As Mr. Curtis was primarily known as the producer of the much hailed horror TV classic, "Dark Shadows," it logically followed that he should continue in his favored genre (including incorporating the same spooky, low budget music score that held him in good stead in the TV series), but overall I think the decision flawed an otherwise perfect film.

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."

Jack Palance gives a darn good performance and the atmosphere is outstanding. One of the best adaptations out there. I've always been a Palance fan, so I am a bit partial, but this is good, Gothic horror. Not bloody or gory, just atmospheric. Worth a Friday night viewing.I love the old, classic horror movies. Frankenstein, Dracula, etc. etc., and this movie has that sort of feeling, with a dash of Hammer in there. The movie moves briskly and keeps your attention throughout. The story, of course, is about the duality of man and shows how we can all become nasty, selfish creatures when our conscience isn't functioning. Palance, as Jekyll, is almost too shy but as Hyde he shows all the passion of a man living his life solely for himself, without a care for any one else'e feelings or safety. He is brutal and brash and really shows us how we, as humans, on one hand can love and want to help others and, on the other, can become all that is evil and loathsome to our fellow creatures. This story is, perhaps, more relevant today than at any other time in man's history.

This was the first version of the story I ever saw so I may be a bit biased. As a long time student of this genre and of this story in particular, I can say that while not the Stevenson novella verbatim, it is still much closer than other adaptations. Of particular note are the references to drug addiction of young people in Victorian London. Mr. Palance gives a bravura performance in the dual role. Is it my imagination or does the Mr. Hyde make-up created by Master Make-Up Artist Dick Smith resemble classic depictions of Satan or perhaps the Satyr? Dan Curtis assembled an excellent cast in a sterling production. The new DVD version offers enhanced picture and sound quality as well as various subtitles for your viewing enjoyment. You may consider this video/DVD a valued asset to your collection of this strange story of one man's fascination with man's dual nature. Perhaps there is a bit of Edward Hyde in all of us!