Nonureva Really Surprised!

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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.

MartinHafer In the late 1960s, Dan Curtis made a name for himself by being the executive producer and writer for "Dark Shadows". In addition, he made a few made for TV horror films--including "Dracula", "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and this film, "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".One problem with this and all other versions of the story I have seen is that they have the same actor play both Dr. Jekyll AND Mr. Hyde. I say this is a mistake because in Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, the reason why folks could not believe the two men were one was that Hyde was SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than the doctor. In other words, films only use a bit of makeup to make the transformation and the two invariably look too similar to make the story very convincing.Unlike the movie versions of the story made during the sound era, this one is unusual in that it jumps right into the action. Within a few minutes of the start of the film, Dr. Jekyll has already created his elixir to transform himself into a less restrained persona, Mr. Hyde. His motivations and good works he did before the transformation are really not explored in any depth like other films. I don't think this is a bad thing--just different.Another thing that was a bit different is that this version is quite a bit more violent than other versions (such as the Frederic March and Spencer Tracy films). Hyde stabs and beats a lot of folks for kicks and seems more nasty than usual. Again, not a bad thing at all--just different. Plus, the awfulness of Hyde is well in keeping with the spirit of the novel.I think the thing that surprised me the most is that Jack Palance was quite good. He was intense as Hyde and quite restrained as Jekyll. The film also looked exceptional. In particular, the streets of London were quite striking as were the costumes. They got the look down quite well--far better than you'd expect for a made for TV production. As a result, it's about as good a version as you can find--though, as I pointed out above, it sure would be nice to see a version closer to the book in regard to how Hyde looked.

widescreenguy 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.

bekayess I first saw this TV version of "Jekyll and Hyde" on Sunday night, January 7, 1968 (I remember for two reasons: I really liked it, and it was my 11th birthday.) I seem to recall, although I could be wrong (help me out if anyone knows) that it was repeated on July 4th of that year. While everyone else in my family was outside watching fireworks, I was in watching Jack Palance give what I consider to be one of his best performances as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde.Palance evokes sympathy as the doctor, and his Hyde was (and is) pure evil. In two scenes (the beating of Lanyon and the murder of Gwen), Hyde is brutal, uncompromising and without remorse. Billie Whitelaw (Gwen) is a wonderful and under-rated actress. I was really pleased (after several years of not seeing her in anything else) to see her in THE OMEN.Of the classic horror tales that Dan Curtis adapted over the years, this is the best. It compares favorably with the Frederic March version (the only other version I enjoy), it is superior to MGM's glossy Spencer Tracy version, and it makes the musical version (with Kirk Douglas as the doctor) look like the joke that it was.Rent it and enjoy!