Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1973)

** (out of 4)

Extremely uneven, made-for-TV version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel finds the kind Henry Jekyll (Kirk Douglas) being turned down by an insane asylum when he asks permission to treat one of their patients with his new drug. With no where else to turn Jekyll decides to try it on himself and soon he's transformed into the evil Mr. Hyde. This film originally played on NBC and has become somewhat of a Holy Grail for me over the past couple years because no matter how hard I tried I just could never track down a copy. Finally the movie showed up and I must admit that it was pretty disappointing but in areas that I really wasn't expecting it. I'll start off by saying that you're entertainment level is going to depend on how many of the songs you enjoy. I'm not sure how well a Musical version of the Jekyll and Hyde story went over back in the day but when viewing this film today one can't help but, at times, roll their eyes and laugh. I've heard rumors that some of the songs here were originally cut from OLIVER! but a few experts say this isn't true. I certainly hope not because I found the songs here to be incredibly boring, stiff and just downright flat. I guess, to be fair, you could say that some of them were inventive in terms of the lyrics but they still didn't work for me because I just didn't find any energy or emotion in any of them. Another problem is that director Winters is all over the place and never really seems to know how he wants the film to play. At times you'd swear you were watching some sort of spoof because of how over the top some of the performances and songs are. Just take a look at the first transformation sequence with Douglas turning into Hyde and you'll be wondering why the director never stepped in and demanded a second take. There were actually several moments where I wondered if an outtake had slipped into the production because the numbers were either that bad or just didn't live up to be anything special. Douglas seems a bit too laid back as Jekyll but he does manage to come to life as Hyde later in the film. I think the crazier Hyde gets the better Douglas' performance becomes. The real shock here is Susan George who plays the role of the prostitute. I'd dare say this is the best performance I've seen her in next to STRAW DOGS and her singing was actually very good. Another major thumbs up goes to Donald Pleasence who plays a watch thief and he too manages to sing quite well. Michael Redgrave appears briefly and is a bit too wooden. The set design is actually pretty good looking and the costumes are another major plus but these few good things can't save an otherwise dull film. If one enjoys the music they'll probably rate this one a bit higher but I'd say the majority of people are going to walk away disappointed.

The concept of musicalizing R. L. Stevenson' classic horror novella must have been as strange as making Jekyll the handsomer of the two personas in Hammer Films' disappointing 1960 version. Also, the fact that I have been waiting to watch this particular (and quite rare – despite a one-off Yuletide screening of it ages ago on local TV which I missed) adaptation for 30 years – ever since I read about it in Alan Frank's "Monsters And Vampires" book, I was prepared to be let down by it. However, Lionel Bart's unmemorable score notwithstanding, it offers not just a splendid cast well engaged with the material but enough 'new' additions to make the whole affair a delightful concoction (pun intended). Kirk Douglas' Dr. Jekyll is a Canadian immigrant in London who is seeking a cure for mental illness; Stanley Holloway is his loyal butler Poole; Susan Hampshire is Jekyll's long-suffering high society fiancée; Sir Michael Redgrave is her disapproving father; Donald Pleasence is a low-life showing Mr. Hyde the ropes in the night spots of Soho; Susan George and a young Judi Bowker are Hyde's protégées/victims. There are no heated "Good vs. Evil" discussions here (Jekyll's biggest faux-pas in the eyes of society here is arriving on a bicycle for tea!); he decides to drink his own formula after he is refused to try it out on the inmates of the local asylum and, unaccountably, keeps a vial of it ready for use in his laboratory; Hyde takes to visiting the Houses of Parliament and pelt MPs with fruit and vegetables!; the arrested Hyde wakes up in prison as the good doctor and is immediately sprung; Jekyll is haunted by multiple visions of Hyde in his laboratory when he decides to kill him off; George does not expire from the beatings of her 'protector' but loses her mind (after being taken on a midnight stroll to visit her own grave!); it is footman Pleasence himself who blows Jekyll's cover – at which point the doctor has the mother of all meltdowns in front of everybody and jumps at Hampshire's throat having transformed himself one last time into Hyde.

This TV production did not have songs cut from Oliver, The score was to be an original by Oliver's composer Lionel Bart. Uncredited composers were brought in to "doctor" Bart's awful score. Certainly that horrid graveyard number with Jekyll playing a gravestone shaped like a piano has to be the worst moment in the film. On the other hand some of it is so unintentionally funny you end up enjoying it anyway. Kirk Douglas' performance is pretty good, his singing isn't. Still compared to the David Hasselhoff video of the Broadway musical this could be called a masterpiece. Maybe Jekyll and Hyde shouldn't be musicalized, or at least should be given to more talented creators.

Certain roles, like Hamlet, Ebenezer Scrooge, and Dr. Jekyll, are continually redone. Usually it's because big stars wish to show off their acting chops and play these iconic roles, and no matter how many times we've already seen the story, we usually flock to the theaters and support our favorite leading men. The only versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's story Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I've seen are the ones starring Michael Caine and Kirk Douglas! Where my celebrity boyfriends go, I go.

In this television musical, there's a juxtaposition of two very different movies. One movie is a classic adaptation of the spooky drama in which a respected scientist takes his experiments too far and transforms into a monster. The other is a very silly musical with very silly songs. As the music and lyrics were written by Lionel Bart, of Oliver! fame, you might think the contrast of a very dark story with silly songs might work out. Unfortunately, in this case, it doesn't. As hard as Kirk Douglas tries to inject a little class into the movie, he's given such lousy raw materials to work with, there really isn't any chance that the audience can take the movie seriously. The opening song, in which passersby believe Dr. Jekyll to be a man of good character, is pretty cute. But, after you've heard the last chorus of "Whatever it is, whatever Jekyll's doing, I'm sure it's something very, very good!" you've heard the last cute song. The rest are so silly and simple they just might turn you into your own version of Mr. Hyde.

In my opinion this is an excellent remake of the classic story. Kirk Douglas in the role of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his evil counterpart Mr. Edward Hyde, is as good as Fredric March was in the 1931 film, and better than Spencer Tracy in the 1941 version.

And Susan George is better for the part of two bit hooker than both Miriam Hopkins (1931) and Ingrid Bergman (1941).

Only blemish is the singing, which does not contribute to the atmosphere but almost destroys the tension and excitement.

Overall though a very good enjoyable film.