The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Tags: insanity, gothic

Plot synopsis:
Gabriel John Utterson and his cousin Richard Enfield reach the door of a large house on their weekly walk. Enfield tells Utterson that months ago he saw a sinister-looking man named Edward Hyde trample a young girl after accidentally bumping into her. Enfield forced Hyde to pay £100 to avoid a scandal. Hyde brought them to this door and provided a cheque signed by a reputable gentleman (later revealed to be Dr. Henry Jekyll, a friend and client of Utterson). Utterson is disturbed because Jekyll recently changed his will to make Hyde the sole beneficiary. Utterson fears that Hyde is blackmailing Jekyll. When Utterson tries to discuss Hyde with Jekyll, Jekyll turns pale and asks that Hyde be left alone.
One night in October, a servant sees Hyde beat to death Sir Danvers Carew, another of Utterson's clients. The police contact Utterson, who leads officers to Hyde's apartment. Hyde has vanished, but they find half of a broken cane. Utterson recognizes the cane as one he had given to Jekyll. Utterson visits Jekyll, who shows Utterson a note, allegedly written to Jekyll by Hyde, apologising for the trouble that he has caused. However, Hyde's handwriting is similar to Jekyll's own, leading Utterson to conclude that Jekyll forged the note to protect Hyde.
For two months, Jekyll reverts to his former sociable manner, but in early January, he starts refusing visitors. Dr. Robert Lanyon, a mutual acquaintance of Jekyll and Utterson, dies of shock after receiving information relating to Jekyll. Before his death, Lanyon gives Utterson a letter to be opened after Jekyll's death or disappearance. In late February, during another walk with Enfield, Utterson starts a conversation with Jekyll at a window of his laboratory. Jekyll suddenly slams the window and disappears. In early March, Jekyll's butler, Mr. Poole, visits Utterson and says Jekyll has secluded himself in his laboratory for weeks. Utterson and Poole break into the laboratory, where they find Hyde wearing Jekyll's clothes and apparently dead from suicide. They find a letter from Jekyll to Utterson. Utterson reads Lanyon's letter, then Jekyll's. Lanyon's letter reveals his deterioration resulted from the shock of seeing Hyde drink a serum that turned him into Jekyll. Jekyll's letter explains that he had indulged in unstated vices and feared discovery. He found a way to transform himself and thereby indulge his vices without fear of detection. Jekyll's transformed personality, Hyde, was evil, self-indulgent, and uncaring to anyone but himself. Initially, Jekyll controlled the transformations with the serum, but one night in August, he became Hyde involuntarily in his sleep.
Jekyll resolved to cease becoming Hyde. One night, he had a moment of weakness and drank the serum. Hyde, furious at having been caged for so long, killed Carew. Horrified, Jekyll tried more adamantly to stop the transformations. Then, in early January, he transformed involuntarily while awake. Far from his laboratory and hunted by the police as a murderer, Hyde needed help to avoid capture. He wrote to Lanyon (in Jekyll's hand), asking his friend to bring chemicals from his laboratory. In Lanyon's presence, Hyde mixed the chemicals, drank the serum, and transformed into Jekyll. The shock of the sight instigated Lanyon's deterioration and death. Meanwhile, Jekyll's involuntary transformations increased in frequency and required ever larger doses of serum to reverse. It was one of these transformations that caused Jekyll to slam his window shut on Enfield and Utterson.
Eventually, one of the chemicals used in the serum ran low, and subsequent batches prepared from new stocks failed to work. Jekyll speculated that one of the original ingredients must have some unknown impurity that made it work. Knowing he would become Hyde permanently, Jekyll decided to write his "confession". He ended the letter by writing, "I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end."

Review: Amid the long lists of accomplishments, for actor Jack Palance, is this truly remarkable film achievement.
Robert Louis Stevenson created his memorable set of characters; humanitarian Jekyll and terrifying Mr. Hyde, never realizing how many thespians would attempt to personify his creations.
Many are consider excellent, but for my money, the very best is none other than Jack Palance as Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde.
I suppose its because, Jack Palance throughout his movie career, has established himself as a reputable heavy.
For the first time in film history, has an actor stun the audience with such an incredible performance, as to leave them applauding him with praise and wonderful accolades.
They included Denholm Elliott as Mr. George Devlin, Leo Genn as Dr. Lanyon, Torin Thatcher as Sir John Turnbull and wonderful Oscar Homolka as Stryker.
You may see other film adaptions of this horror tale, but in my opinion, few to equal this version.
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.
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.
Jack Palance hams it up as Hyde: a friend who saw the movie with me said he looked like a muppet during the scene at Tessie's music hall!
But his Dr. Jekyll is a brilliant character, full of the best kind of noble suffering that a great tragic hero endures.
Any fan of _Dark Shadows_ will love this _Jekyll and Hyde_; and any horror fan should enjoy seeing it, too!.
One of the better versions of the classic story..
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).
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.
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..
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.
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..
This was the first version of the story I ever saw so I may be a bit biased.
As a long time student of this genre and of this story in particular, I can say that while not the Stevenson novella verbatim, it is still much closer than other adaptations.
Mr. Palance gives a bravura performance in the dual role.
Is it my imagination or does the Mr. Hyde make-up created by Master Make-Up Artist Dick Smith resemble classic depictions of Satan or perhaps the Satyr?
Dan Curtis assembled an excellent cast in a sterling production.
John Barrymore's one is also still very good and Burbank Films Australia's animated version surprisingly good too, didn't care all that much for the Spencer Tracy film but even that wasn't too bad.
Before seeing this, I would have considered the March film the best version but now it'd be this one.
The whole adaptation looks great, the lighting has that atmospheric Gothic touch, the costumes are sumptuous and the sets and the way they look make you feel like you're there in Victorian London and with the characters, which is remarkable for a made for TV film to do.
London looks so beautiful and evocatively creepy at the same time, and how the fog is done and used really stands out in terms of visuals and atmosphere.
Adding a lot also is Robert Cobert's score, which is very haunting without ever being obvious, it's not as spooky as the score he did for 1973's Dracula(also directed by Dan Curtis and starring Jack Palance, which is also worth seeing but not quite as good) but is so in a different kind of way.
As an adaptation, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde may not be word for word, detail for detail to the Stevenson classic with a few changes and additions but actually all the major details are intact and so is the spirit of the story, and it does this more successfully than any of the other versions.
The idea of Dr Jekyll being responsible for the crimes due to Hyde not being a whole person, as heard in Devlin's line "You don't understand, do you?
The story is very suspenseful, the scariest parts actually being genuinely so, and entertaining at all times, especially with any scene with Mr. Hyde, it was good also that it got straight to the point instead of being bogged down by filler, even more remarkable is that it managed to be loyal to such a timeless and well-known story and make it feel fresh.It is more violent than the other Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde adaptations, but not in a gratuitous way.
Curtis' direction is as solid as rocks, and the characters carry the narrative beautifully, the most interesting of course is Jekyll/Hyde but the other characters are hardly given short shrift, Devlin actually is just as much and has some of the adaptation's most memorable lines.
But it is Jack Palance who walks away with the acting honours, as he rightfully should, managing to make Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde completely different from one another without making Jekyll too mannered or dull or Hyde too over-the-top or completely brutish, both of which is what makes this iconic dual role tricky.
He does superbly as both Jekyll and Hyde, loved the refinement and nobility he brought to Jekyll, possibly Palance at his most restrained, but he is even better as Hyde, as well as being one of the most physical and brutal in the role he is also the one that comes off the most genuinely scary and passionate, he hams it up just a tad but actually in this case that was what made the performance fun to watch.
Overall, a brilliantly done version of a classic and the best version seen so far.
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.
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.
Hyde is the dark side of Jekyll, and nothing about Hyde wasn't already inside the doctor.
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!
The best version of the story I have ever seen.
I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and at least one other time on TV.
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).
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.
Jack Palance gives a darn good performance and the atmosphere is outstanding.
I've always been a Palance fan, so I am a bit partial, but this is good, Gothic horror.
Worth a Friday night viewing.I love the old, classic horror movies.
Palance, as Jekyll, is almost too shy but as Hyde he shows all the passion of a man living his life solely for himself, without a care for any one else'e feelings or safety.
This story is, perhaps, more relevant today than at any other time in man's history..
Character of Jekyll & Hyde is most faithful to the novel.
This is one of the four Dan Curtis TV horror films that I have seen.
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.
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.
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..
One of the best horror movies ever.
Doctor Jekyll discover that man has to souls one good one and one evil.
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.
Mr Hyde is on a rampage in Victorian London.
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.
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..
The best version of this classic ever made..
In my opinion, this is the single best screen adaptation of the Robert Lewis Stevenson classic ever made.
I have seen the greatest actors in the world perform the role, from Fredrick March to Spencer Tracy, and although they were all superb, the often overlooked Jack Palance SHINED in the role, using every bit of his experience to breathe life into this dusty morality play.
I recall the Tracy version looking so incredibly heavy that he looked like a cross between a deranged monkey and a Neanderthal.
Better yet was the SUPERB all-British cast of seasoned stage and film performers they surrounded him with, including a terrific Billie Whitelaw as the victimized dance hall girl (who also played the demonic nanny in an equally excellent, "The Omen"), a superb Denholm Elliot as the long-suffering best friend, and even a memorable cameo by the great Welsh stage and screen star, Tessie O'Toole, in the most memorable musical number of the entire film.
But the only reason that I did not give this wonderful production a well-deserved "ten," was the rather hokey use of video that the producer, Dan Curtis, decided to use (to his utter shame) instead of shooting it on film.
As Mr. Curtis was primarily known as the producer of the much hailed horror TV classic, "Dark Shadows," it logically followed that he should continue in his favored genre (including incorporating the same spooky, low budget music score that held him in good stead in the TV series), but overall I think the decision flawed an otherwise perfect film..
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.
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!.
The big problem is how to make Hyde look sufficiently different from Jekyll without turning him into something that in a real world would be caged in a zoo.
The Tracy version is the one extreme--the fact no one recognizes Hyde as Jekyll after a 3-day bender is absurd.
This version solves the problem neatly, by casting an actor (Jack Palance) who starts out looking more like Hyde than Jekyll.
In fact Dan Curtis has said they used almost as much make-up to soften Palance's appearance for Jekyll as they did to turn him into Hyde.
This 1968 version is both intense and entertaining.
The performance of the title character by Jack Palance is excellent.
His Hyde is at first light hearted but soon turns to what the author Robert Louis Stevenson attended.
Is it because the producer Dan Curtis whom also created the horror soap "Dark Shadows" shot this show also in the same format.
A fine TV version of the story.
This film is another adaptation of a classic horror novel by Dan Curtis, the man who pretty much owned TV horror in the 1960s and 1970s.
Jack Palance gives a very good performance in the dual role, and this version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel, although hampered by the TV budget, is appropriately authentic and atmospheric.
Dick Smith, the man behind THE EXORCIST, supplies the make-up effects, which are unusual and effective, and some seasoned character actors like Leo Genn and Denholm Elliott work well in support.