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.

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.

With the death of Kirk Douglas a couple days ago, I was in the mood to watch one of his films. However, I've seen most of his work and so after a bit of research I found something I haven't seen...nor knew that he ever made in the first place. It seems that back in 1973, he starred in a made for TV musical version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"! While this sounded just dreadful, it did make me curious...and when I found it on YouTube I knew I just had to see it.

Before you decide to watch this one, there are a couple things you should know. Even for YouTube, the quality of the print is simply awful...so bad that a sane person probably wouldn't bother--which says a lot about me! Also, there are blank gaps in the film where the commercials used to be...so be sure to speed through them.

So is the film good? No. While the sets and costumes are lovely, the music really didn't work. The songs weren't very good (why a song all about bicycle?) but also it seemed strange having Douglas in the lead singing most of the songs as he really didn't have a great voice. Why not pick an actor with a strong voice, such as Gordon MacRae or Howard Keel? I also couldn't understand why they didn't stick closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel? The original motivation for the Doctor's work was to unlock the dark side of a human being....here he's a neurologist who is trying to cure insanity. Why the change? I also thought the makeup to make Jekyll become Hyde was cheap and silly--mostly just cotton stuffed in Douglas' mouth! It made me laugh when folks didn't recognize him...when he simply looked like Jekyll with mumps! I also laughed when Jekyll keeps talking to describe EVERYTHING he's thinking and doing...didn't this seem awkward to anyone when they did it?

Overall, this is a silly and misguided film project. Good for a laugh...and not much more.

Kirk Douglas co-produced this videotaped NBC production through his Bryna Productions, and cast himself in the lead. It's rumored to feature castoff songs from Lionel Bart's OLIVER! If so, they've been shoehorned somewhat inappropriately into a truncated but serviceable version of the Stevenson tale.

The cast and performances are good-- particularly Susan George, Judi Bowker and Donald Pleasence (who displays an impressive singing voice).

Some of the songs are fine-- the one Michael Redgrave sings at the engagement party is beautiful-- but others are cringe-making. One may watch this show wincing in dread that another one will start.

Despite this, it's an interesting version-- certainly a curiosity-- and worth a look.

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.