Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

MartinHafer 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). Hyde stabs and beats a lot of folks for kicks and seems more nasty than usual. Again, not a bad thing at all--just different. 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. The film also looked exceptional. In particular, the streets of London were quite striking as were the costumes. They got the look down quite well--far better than you'd expect for a made for TV production. 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.

thinker1691 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. On stage and later in Hollywood several actors tried. From the 1930s' to a modern interpretation involving Michael Caine, a dozen actors have attempted the duel parts. 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. No one, including myself, had ever seen him emulate a respectable, sophisticated and admired medical man of science. His performance in this role is nothing short of magical, nay, electrifying. 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. To his credit, his fellow actors believed that as well. 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. *****

synstok 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. A total beast with no regards but to act on impulses. I do have a few complaints1. Why was this movie shot in a video tape format? Is it because the producer Dan Curtis whom also created the horror soap "Dark Shadows" shot this show also in the same format. 2. What's up with the pool in the streets of London? In the second act after a tryst with 2 ladies of the evening Hyde pushes one of the two "working girls" off a bank of steps into a area of water. I never understood that scene. 3. And finally after a meeting with his best friend Devin, Jekyll passes out from exhaustion he pulls down a cage filled with rabbits. I always wondered about those rabbits being injured.

bekayess 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. Billie Whitelaw (Gwen) is a wonderful and under-rated actress. 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!