Interesteg What makes it different from others?

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

snicewanger This is easily my favorite version of the Robert Louis Stevenson monster tale. Jack Palance is ideally cast as Mr Hyde. He is physically strong, athletic, menacing, and quite vicious when crossed.Legendary make up artist Dick Smith created Hyde's Satanic look. Palance's Dr Jekyll is effective as well.He plays him as socially awkward and uncomfortable with his emotions. An excellent supporting cast includes Denholm Elliot, Leo Genn, Oskar Homolka, and Torn Thatcher. Billie Whitelaw plays Gwyn as sexy,vulnerable and the object of Hyde's sadistic lust.Dan Curtis became a master of Gothic story telling and he gets strong performances from everyone involved. He capture's the look of London in the 1880's with its foggy and gas lit back streets with help from set dresser Fred Brown.Robert Colbert's eerie theme music would later show up in Curtis's Dark ShadowsA chillingly good story and outstanding performances make this one a must for any horror film connoisseur.8 out of 10.

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.

kriitikko This is one of the four Dan Curtis TV horror films that I have seen. Even when Curtis himself does not direct it, Charles Jarrott does a good job. It's a shame that this is only a TV movie. As a big budget film this would be great watching. Story is good. It is both faithful to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, and it has take that woman that movie needs(they did it also in 1931 and 1941 versions in Hollywood but they are not faithful to the novel). No doubt: Dr. Jekyll's and mister Hyde's character's are the most faithful one's to the novel. Dr. Jekyll is almost middle aged man how does not have a girl in he's life and how is very shy. Mr. Hyde is cruel and really evil man. Yes, man! The makeup(made by expert Dick Smith) make's him look like a human and that what he was in novel, really ugly and evil human. Not any ape looking or gorilla.Actors: Jack Palance is wonderful as Jekyll/Hyde. He really makes them just as they are in the book. If there would not have been Fredrick March(in 1931's version)there is nobody that could be as good as Palance. Also Denholm Elliott(RAIDERS OF LOST ARK) as Jekyll's friend and Billie Whitelaw(THE OMEN)as the unlucky girl are doing good job.Really good version. To all Jekyll & Hyde or Dan Curtis fan's.

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!