La terrible historia del Dr. Jekyll y Mr. Hyde

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.

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.

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.

I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and at least one other time on TV. Seems like it was made for TV by the Canadian Broadcasting Company, as I recall. I had read the book and had seen several movie versions and was delighted at the vigor and believability that Jack Palance brought to the title role(s). As someone else has said here, I think it was the closest rendition of the book as well. He was good as both the good doctor and as Hyde, but was remarkable in bringing Hyde to life without much makeup, rather with the strength of his acting. His physical vigor was a part of it too, dashing through the streets, doing violence with his sword-cane in the action scenes, and I think I remember him leaping across the furniture in a pub in one scene. I'm glad to read here that it is out on DVD and will look forward to seeing it again.

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.