This film is another adaptation of a classic horror novel by Dan Curtis, the man who pretty much owned TV horror in the 1960s and 1970s. Jack Palance gives a very good performance in the dual role, and this version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel, although hampered by the TV budget, is appropriately authentic and atmospheric. Dick Smith, the man behind THE EXORCIST, supplies the make-up effects, which are unusual and effective, and some seasoned character actors like Leo Genn and Denholm Elliott work well in support. One stand-out is a young Billie Whitelaw as a prostitute, who receives an 'introducing' credit. The film is slightly overlong at two hours, but the scenes of high drama are effective, and the transformations, although low fi, really work.

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.

I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and at least one other time on TV. Seems like it was made for TV by the Canadian Broadcasting Company, as I recall. I had read the book and had seen several movie versions and was delighted at the vigor and believability that Jack Palance brought to the title role(s). As someone else has said here, I think it was the closest rendition of the book as well. He was good as both the good doctor and as Hyde, but was remarkable in bringing Hyde to life without much makeup, rather with the strength of his acting. His physical vigor was a part of it too, dashing through the streets, doing violence with his sword-cane in the action scenes, and I think I remember him leaping across the furniture in a pub in one scene. I'm glad to read here that it is out on DVD and will look forward to seeing it again.

This is one of the four Dan Curtis TV horror films that I have seen. Even when Curtis himself does not direct it, Charles Jarrott does a good job. It's a shame that this is only a TV movie. As a big budget film this would be great watching. Story is good. It is both faithful to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, and it has take that woman that movie needs(they did it also in 1931 and 1941 versions in Hollywood but they are not faithful to the novel). No doubt: Dr. Jekyll's and mister Hyde's character's are the most faithful one's to the novel. Dr. Jekyll is almost middle aged man how does not have a girl in he's life and how is very shy. Mr. Hyde is cruel and really evil man. Yes, man! The makeup(made by expert Dick Smith) make's him look like a human and that what he was in novel, really ugly and evil human. Not any ape looking or gorilla.Actors: Jack Palance is wonderful as Jekyll/Hyde. He really makes them just as they are in the book. If there would not have been Fredrick March(in 1931's version)there is nobody that could be as good as Palance. Also Denholm Elliott(RAIDERS OF LOST ARK) as Jekyll's friend and Billie Whitelaw(THE OMEN)as the unlucky girl are doing good job.Really good version. To all Jekyll & Hyde or Dan Curtis fan's.