It's really unfortunate that the story of Dr. Jekyll has become so famous. Part of this is that because the story is such a familiar tale, everyone seems to know what will happen--ruining any sense of suspense (which the original story had--big time). And, part of this is because all too often, producers used this as a cheap idea for a film--after all, it was in the public domain and it took little brain work to recreate the story. And, speaking of little brain work, I have seen MANY versions of the story and so far none of them have gotten it the story very closely, as they all seem to miss one of the main points of Robert Lewis Stevenson's exceptional novel. You see, to be like the book, the actor that plays Jekyll CANNOT be the one who plays Hyde, as Hyde was a much smaller and stockier character. Instead of the usual cheap makeup job stories have, why didn't they use two different actors? Plus, the way Stevenson wrote the story, you really did NOT know they were the same person until the end (though, as I said, the story is so familiar now that this great twist is now meaningless).
So does this made for TV one hour production offer anything NEW--anything that sets it apart from the other craptacular films? Well, yes and no. It does start off like the novel--with a friend reading Jekyll's diary to learn about he man's fate. I liked this a lot. Sadly, however, little else about this movie worked any better than the Frederic March, John Barrymore, Spencer Tracy or any other version. Michael Rennie and Cederic Hardwicke, though fine actors, are pretty wooden and uninteresting here--as is the entire film, actually. In fact, the film could have used a large case of CPR---breathing some life into the flat tale. Overall, it wasn't horrible--just very pedestrian from start to finish.
By the way, since I divulge that Jekyll IS Hyde, I marked this one as having a spoiler. But, is this even necessary any more? Just who DOESN'T know this?
So does this made for TV one hour production offer anything NEW--anything that sets it apart from the other craptacular films? Well, yes and no. It does start off like the novel--with a friend reading Jekyll's diary to learn about he man's fate. I liked this a lot. Sadly, however, little else about this movie worked any better than the Frederic March, John Barrymore, Spencer Tracy or any other version. Michael Rennie and Cederic Hardwicke, though fine actors, are pretty wooden and uninteresting here--as is the entire film, actually. In fact, the film could have used a large case of CPR---breathing some life into the flat tale. Overall, it wasn't horrible--just very pedestrian from start to finish.
By the way, since I divulge that Jekyll IS Hyde, I marked this one as having a spoiler. But, is this even necessary any more? Just who DOESN'T know this?