Mjeteconer Just perfect...

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

MARIO GAUCI 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.

Michael_Elliott 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.

Woodyanders Here's a very unlikely and peculiar fright feature: an early 70's NBC-TV musical adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic Victorian-era novella with an unusually cast Kirk Douglas in the dual role of the good-hearted, blandly respectable Dr. Jekyll and his evil, lusty, gleefully immoral and animalistic id-run-amok alter ego Mr. Hyde. What's most surprising about this audaciously imaginative enterprise is how to a sizable degree it works extremely well. There's no denying that the schizophrenic titular part is any true actor's dream role; Douglas clearly knows this and gladly sinks his teeth into the part, playing the two wildly contrasting characters with lip-smacking brio. The rest of the cast is made up of top-drawer British thespians: Susan Hampshire radiates considerable charm as Jekyll's fiancé, Sir Michael Redgrave portrays Hampshire's prim'n'proper gentleman father to stuffy perfection, Donald Pleasence simply delights as a petty, scraggly street peddler, Susan George has a grand bawdy time as a fiercely proud and blithely naughty saloon showgirl, and Stanley Holloway displays an appropriate amount of concern as Jekyll's loyal, worried butler.Sherman Yellen's script astutely captures the repressive mores and scientific curiosity which defined late 19th century London. The lavish costumes and fog-shrouded sets vividly evoke the period. The score by Lionel Bart, Mel Mandell and Norman Sachs is rather hit-or-miss, supplying a decidedly mixed bag of tunes which range from mediocre and forgettable to lively and enjoyable. The better songs are good, jaunty fun, distinguished by especially catchy and witty lyrics. The cast belt out the songs with terrifically infectious aplomb; it's a real treat to see Douglas, Pleasence and the underrated George cheerfully rip into their numbers. Alas, there are a few glaring flaws which gum things up to a fair extent: pedestrian, workmanlike direction by David Winters (who later helmed the laughably bad Joe Spinell psycho vehicle "The Last Horror Film"), flat cinematography, and a blurry, rough-on-the-eyes shot-on-video look that results in an ugly and unappealing visual texture. These faults asides, this picture still holds up as an admirably fresh and novel take on an often-told hoary old chestnut creepy tale.

NwsHound 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.