Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

kateskye The acting is fine, the costumes are fine and the dialogue is fine... This is one of those films that's not so bad that it becomes good again, and it's not good enough to be a classic. It's just a middling film from early 1960's Hammer horror.On one hand, the film was trying to switch things up. Mr. Hyde has so often been depicted as an ugly monster in other films (see the 1920, 1931 and 1941 adaptions for good examples). Instead, this film portrays Hyde as a seemingly suave gentleman with an evil heart; a wolf in sheep's clothing, essentially.The premise falls short because the film does not truly emphasize how terribly Hyde has behaved. He drinks and carouses, but the vast majority is off screen. When Jekyll laments there is no depth of depravity that will satisfy Jekyll, it's hard to believe because he doesn't seen to have yet pushed the boundaries very far. It's not until late in the movie when Hyde does truly horrible things.The best moments of the film are when Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde struggle against one another while in the same body, even if Jekyll's facial hair looks painfully fake from the movie's first shot.

tomgillespie2002 Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novella Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has provided inspiration for many a film-maker throughout the years, with various degrees of faithfulness shown to the source. Always eager to put their own Gothic spin on a popular tale, Hammer Films tackled the story in 1960, not only ensuring that debauchery levels were maximised, but changed a key aspect to the plot that makes the whole experience all the more delightfully wicked. Here, in Terence Fisher's film, Dr. Jekyll is dull and ugly, while Mr. Hyde is handsome and highly charismatic, as well as being an utter bastard.Believing the human mind to consist of two personalities from opposite sides of the spectrum - good and evil - outcast Dr. Jekyll (Paul Massie) sets out to separate the two in order to help mankind embrace the good. Living almost in solitude, he neglects his wife Kitty (Dawn Addams), a promiscuous, spoilt woman currently embarking on an affair with her husband's best friend, Paul Allen (Christopher Lee). Jekyll drinks his newly created potion and Hyde emerges, introducing himself at a social gathering with swagger and charm (and getting into a fight with a young Oliver Reed). There he meets Paul and Kitty, who don't recognise him, and begins to toy with the two of them, all the while indulging on the many seductive pleasures of London.Although it's difficult to believe that Jekyll's wife and best friend wouldn't recognise him without his ludicrous fake beard and mono- brow, The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll is a enjoyable romp from start to finish. Massie is clearly having a ball in the dual role, and convinces as Hyde grows bored with money, gambling and women, and soon turns to darker alternatives, notably murder and manipulation. It doesn't pull it's punches either, portraying Hyde's journey into the further extremities of debauchery as intoxicating as Hyde clearly finds it, featuring the odd swear word and a scene of heavily implied rape. Special mention must also go to the recently departed Lee, who somehow finds a shred of sympathy for his cocky and pathetic rich boy character. One of Hammer's most effortlessly gratifying gems.

Harold_Robbins Like many Hammer Films that were pooh-poohed at the time of their release as exploitational, THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL is much better than its reputation would have you think, and it's surprisingly frank in its depictions of adultery and sexuality. It's well-directed by Terence Fisher, and the sets, costumes, set decorations and cinematography are excellent, making very good use of color (particularly in the Can-Can sequence). Performances are also excellent, particularly Paul Massie in the title roles, though he may seem a bit over-the-top at times. He does an excellent job of differentiating between Jekyll and Hyde, even vocally (though he sounds oddly post-synched in both roles). No, this isn't the foggy, gas-lit London of previous versions of J&H - color more or less ruled that out - but its nevertheless effective in its own way and deserves re-examination.

Cujo108 Ostracized by the scientific community, Dr. Jekyll is doing some rather pointless sounding experiments while his wife is cheating on him with his gambler friend. Unhappy with their relationship, he turns his experiments on himself and becomes the suave Mr. Hyde.Another take on the Jekyll and Hyde story, this one has some interesting ideas, but it never does much with them. Ultimately, the film is quite dull. Too much focus is placed on Jekyll's poor marriage and the affair his wife is having. It might not have been so bad if his wife were actually desirable, but she's an annoying shrew. Jekyll should just rid himself of her and consider his life all the better for it. Christopher Lee plays the friend with whom she's having the affair. He's playing against type here and is actually sort of the protagonist, but it's hard feeling sympathy for a philanderer. Paul Massie plays Jekyll and Hyde. He's actually not that great as either. His line delivery just sounds unnatural, especially when he's playing Jekyll.There are some interesting twists towards the end, but it's too little, too late. This isn't one of the better films from Hammer.