Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

It has always been my humble opinion that the best player in the history of the screen who could go quickest into a rage and convince you of it is Kirk Douglas. So the dual role of Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde should have been a natural for him. And when it's strictly acting Kirk takes his place along side John Barrymore, Fredric March, Spencer Tracy even to the guy who created the role in the Victorian era theater Richard Mansfield.

But this musical adaption of Dr.Jekyll And Mr. Hyde fails precisely because of that, it's music. Lionel Bart who wrote so many good songs in the 60s for British pop stars and the score of the musical Oliver was in a lot of financial and health problems. The story goes that Bart opened the trunk and provided a lot of previously unpublished stuff for the score. It hadn't been used because it wasn't that good.

Can't critique the cast here though only Stanley Holloway as Poole the butler could be properly identified as a musical performer. Kirk Douglas had sung on the big screen previously in 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and Man Without A Star, but he had better material there. Donald Pleasance is his usual slimy self as the man from London's underworld who discovers Douglas's dual nature.

The women in the story no matter which version also emphasize the dual nature. Susan Hampshire is the daughter of Michael Redgrave who Douglas courts as Jekyll. But it's Susan George as the music hall performer who Hyde wants to make his love slave.

I wish Kirk Douglas had done a straight dramatic version, it would have been better received.

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.

In my opinion this is an excellent remake of the classic story. Kirk Douglas in the role of Dr. Henry Jekyll and his evil counterpart Mr. Edward Hyde, is as good as Fredric March was in the 1931 film, and better than Spencer Tracy in the 1941 version.

And Susan George is better for the part of two bit hooker than both Miriam Hopkins (1931) and Ingrid Bergman (1941).

Only blemish is the singing, which does not contribute to the atmosphere but almost destroys the tension and excitement.

Overall though a very good enjoyable film.

With the death of Kirk Douglas a couple days ago, I was in the mood to watch one of his films. However, I've seen most of his work and so after a bit of research I found something I haven't seen...nor knew that he ever made in the first place. It seems that back in 1973, he starred in a made for TV musical version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"! While this sounded just dreadful, it did make me curious...and when I found it on YouTube I knew I just had to see it.

Before you decide to watch this one, there are a couple things you should know. Even for YouTube, the quality of the print is simply awful...so bad that a sane person probably wouldn't bother--which says a lot about me! Also, there are blank gaps in the film where the commercials used to be...so be sure to speed through them.

So is the film good? No. While the sets and costumes are lovely, the music really didn't work. The songs weren't very good (why a song all about bicycle?) but also it seemed strange having Douglas in the lead singing most of the songs as he really didn't have a great voice. Why not pick an actor with a strong voice, such as Gordon MacRae or Howard Keel? I also couldn't understand why they didn't stick closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel? The original motivation for the Doctor's work was to unlock the dark side of a human being....here he's a neurologist who is trying to cure insanity. Why the change? I also thought the makeup to make Jekyll become Hyde was cheap and silly--mostly just cotton stuffed in Douglas' mouth! It made me laugh when folks didn't recognize him...when he simply looked like Jekyll with mumps! I also laughed when Jekyll keeps talking to describe EVERYTHING he's thinking and doing...didn't this seem awkward to anyone when they did it?

Overall, this is a silly and misguided film project. Good for a laugh...and not much more.

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.