Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Catangro After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

HotToastyRag Certain roles, like Hamlet, Ebenezer Scrooge, and Dr. Jekyll, are continually redone. Usually it's because big stars wish to show off their acting chops and play these iconic roles, and no matter how many times we've already seen the story, we usually flock to the theaters and support our favorite leading men. The only versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's story Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde I've seen are the ones starring Michael Caine and Kirk Douglas! Where my celebrity boyfriends go, I go.In this television musical, there's a juxtaposition of two very different movies. One movie is a classic adaptation of the spooky drama in which a respected scientist takes his experiments too far and transforms into a monster. The other is a very silly musical with very silly songs. As the music and lyrics were written by Lionel Bart, of Oliver! fame, you might think the contrast of a very dark story with silly songs might work out. Unfortunately, in this case, it doesn't. As hard as Kirk Douglas tries to inject a little class into the movie, he's given such lousy raw materials to work with, there really isn't any chance that the audience can take the movie seriously. The opening song, in which passersby believe Dr. Jekyll to be a man of good character, is pretty cute. But, after you've heard the last chorus of "Whatever it is, whatever Jekyll's doing, I'm sure it's something very, very good!" you've heard the last cute song. The rest are so silly and simple they just might turn you into your own version of Mr. 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.

eye3 If `Oliver!' was Lionel Bart's `Sgt. Pepper,' then `Dr. J & Mr. H' was his `Let It Be.'But I don't blame him nor the brilliant cast for the dullness of this made-in-the-UK-for-NBC production. It would never have been made in the first place if some ratings-hungry hack at 30 Rock wasn't desperate to sell an idea.At the time PBS' `Masterpiece Theater' was scoring Sunday night ratings airing the opulent British costume serials then being made. Said hack had the idea of putting a famous Yank in that sea of British accents. They even made sure they cast Susan Hampshire, who was in just about everyone of those serials, plus some Brits the American audience knew from the movies (Donald Pleasence, Stanley Holloway, Michael Redgrave.) The guy from `Oliver!' has some other songs? And he's broke? Great! Get him, too! Have it ready by such & such date!It was hyped to the nines in the U.S. media, only to crash in the ratings and the columns. I know of this only because of on-line research; I was fascinated why I'd never heard of such a teaming of talent. I even bought an old copy via eBay; I found myself yawning and fast-forwarding.Apparently, great players alone don't make a team; the coach must know what he'll do with them. If they're going to play on their home ground, it helps if they play for their home crowd, too. (`Covington Cross' flopped for the same reason.)

rob.hendrikx 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.