This gem of a production was nominated for six Emmy Awards and is acclaimed as the finest of all the interpretations. Called "ornately atmospheric horror," by The Hollywood Reporter, it is ... See full summary »
In Victorian London, a beautiful young man is given a portrait of himself by an admiring artist. Soon after this, he treats a young woman cruelly and then notices that his portrait seems to... See full summary »
This made-for-television adaptation doesn't waste time with preliminaries. Within 15 minutes of its opening, Dr. Henry Jekyll has already experimented on himself with a concoction that he'd hoped would neutralize his baser instincts but which releases without inhibition his long-repressed animal inclinations.Written by
Kevin McCorry <email@example.com>
This production originally began shooting with Jason Robards in the title role(s), and a makeup that was heavily influenced by John Barrymore in the 1920 silent version (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)). Production was halted due to a strike, and when filming was able to resume, Robards was no longer available. Jack Palance took over the Jekyll/Hyde role, and the makeup concept was radically changed - inspired, more or less, by that of a satyr. See more »
If you kill me, you'll be killing Henry Jekyll!
You don't understand, do you? Jekyll deserves to die - he's the one who's responsible, not you.
See more »
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.
5 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this