This TV production did not have songs cut from Oliver, The score was to be an original by Oliver's composer Lionel Bart. Uncredited composers were brought in to "doctor" Bart's awful score. Certainly that horrid graveyard number with Jekyll playing a gravestone shaped like a piano has to be the worst moment in the film. On the other hand some of it is so unintentionally funny you end up enjoying it anyway. Kirk Douglas' performance is pretty good, his singing isn't. Still compared to the David Hasselhoff video of the Broadway musical this could be called a masterpiece. Maybe Jekyll and Hyde shouldn't be musicalized, or at least should be given to more talented creators.
12 Reviews
Dual nature
bkoganbing8 July 2015
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 The story goes that Bart opened the trunk and provided a lot of previously unpublished stuff for the score.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.
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.
Only for die-hard Kirk Douglas fans
HotToastyRag8 January 2018
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.
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.
The OTHER Jekyll & Hyde musical
NwsHound16 September 2001
Kirk Douglas co-produced this videotaped NBC production through his Bryna Productions, and cast himself in the lead. It's rumored to feature castoff songs from Lionel Bart's OLIVER! If so, they've been shoehorned somewhat inappropriately into a truncated but serviceable version of the Stevenson tale.
The cast and performances are good-- particularly Susan George, Judi Bowker and Donald Pleasence (who displays an impressive singing voice).
Some of the songs are fine-- the one Michael Redgrave sings at the engagement party is beautiful-- but others are cringe-making. One may watch this show wincing in dread that another one will start.
Despite this, it's an interesting version-- certainly a curiosity-- and worth a look.
The cast and performances are good-- particularly Susan George, Judi Bowker and Donald Pleasence (who displays an impressive singing voice).
Some of the songs are fine-- the one Michael Redgrave sings at the engagement party is beautiful-- but others are cringe-making. One may watch this show wincing in dread that another one will start.
Despite this, it's an interesting version-- certainly a curiosity-- and worth a look.
Kirk Douglas as a singing Dr. Jekyll?! Say it isn't so!
planktonrules7 February 2020
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.
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.
A pretty good, but flawed made-for-TV musical adaptation of the classic story
Woodyanders6 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Here's a very unlikely and peculiar fright feature: an early 70's NBC-TV musical adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic Victorian-era novella with an unusually cast Kirk Douglas in the dual role of the good-hearted, blandly respectable Dr. Jekyll and his evil, lusty, gleefully immoral and animalistic id-run-amok alter ego Mr. Hyde. What's most surprising about this audaciously imaginative enterprise is how to a sizable degree it works extremely well. There's no denying that the schizophrenic titular part is any true actor's dream role; Douglas clearly knows this and gladly sinks his teeth into the part, playing the two wildly contrasting characters with lip-smacking brio. The rest of the cast is made up of top-drawer British thespians: Susan Hampshire radiates considerable charm as Jekyll's fiancé, Sir Michael Redgrave portrays Hampshire's prim'n'proper gentleman father to stuffy perfection, Donald Pleasence simply delights as a petty, scraggly street peddler, Susan George has a grand bawdy time as a fiercely proud and blithely naughty saloon showgirl, and Stanley Holloway displays an appropriate amount of concern as Jekyll's loyal, worried butler.
Sherman Yellen's script astutely captures the repressive mores and scientific curiosity which defined late 19th century London. The lavish costumes and fog-shrouded sets vividly evoke the period. The score by Lionel Bart, Mel Mandell and Norman Sachs is rather hit-or-miss, supplying a decidedly mixed bag of tunes which range from mediocre and forgettable to lively and enjoyable. The better songs are good, jaunty fun, distinguished by especially catchy and witty lyrics. The cast belt out the songs with terrifically infectious aplomb; it's a real treat to see Douglas, Pleasence and the underrated George cheerfully rip into their numbers. Alas, there are a few glaring flaws which gum things up to a fair extent: pedestrian, workmanlike direction by David Winters (who later helmed the laughably bad Joe Spinell psycho vehicle "The Last Horror Film"), flat cinematography, and a blurry, rough-on-the-eyes shot-on-video look that results in an ugly and unappealing visual texture. These faults asides, this picture still holds up as an admirably fresh and novel take on an often-told hoary old chestnut creepy tale.
Sherman Yellen's script astutely captures the repressive mores and scientific curiosity which defined late 19th century London. The lavish costumes and fog-shrouded sets vividly evoke the period. The score by Lionel Bart, Mel Mandell and Norman Sachs is rather hit-or-miss, supplying a decidedly mixed bag of tunes which range from mediocre and forgettable to lively and enjoyable. The better songs are good, jaunty fun, distinguished by especially catchy and witty lyrics. The cast belt out the songs with terrifically infectious aplomb; it's a real treat to see Douglas, Pleasence and the underrated George cheerfully rip into their numbers. Alas, there are a few glaring flaws which gum things up to a fair extent: pedestrian, workmanlike direction by David Winters (who later helmed the laughably bad Joe Spinell psycho vehicle "The Last Horror Film"), flat cinematography, and a blurry, rough-on-the-eyes shot-on-video look that results in an ugly and unappealing visual texture. These faults asides, this picture still holds up as an admirably fresh and novel take on an often-told hoary old chestnut creepy tale.
Doctor Jekyll And Mr. Hyde {TV} (David Winters, 1973) ***
Bunuel197612 October 2013
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.
Underrated version of the classic story.
rob.hendrikx15 June 2000
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.
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.
How could it have happened?
eye35 December 2000
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.)
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.)
One of scariest movies ever made
jacobjohntaylor118 September 2015
This is a great horror movie. It is also a very good musical. This movie as great acting. Great songs. Great singing. It also has great special effects. This is a very scary movie. It very different. There are not to many musicals based on horror novels. There should be more musicals based on horror stories. It would make them more interesting. Doctor Jekyll finds out that man has two souls. And good soul and an evil soul. He invents a formula that brings out his evil side. It takes him over. This movies is very intense. This is Kirk Douglas's best movie. Kirk Douglas is a great actor. He is also a great singer. Susan George is a great actress. This movie is a must see.
Uneven With No Real Direction
Michael_Elliott4 October 2010
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.
** (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.
Kirk is two-faced
moran-7884510 July 2020
I watched this made-for-television when it was first aired in the spring of 1973. I remember it clearly because it was shortly before I graduated from high school. I watched with my parents. I really enjoy the productions: songs and all.
I watched the movie again on youtube after forty-seven years from the first time I had viewed it. I still really enjoyed the production: songs and all. I think Kirk Douglas was able to pull-off a very likeable Dr. Henry Jekyll, as well as a very menacing Mr. Hyde.
The supporting cast of British actors was brilliant.
I watched the movie again on youtube after forty-seven years from the first time I had viewed it. I still really enjoyed the production: songs and all. I think Kirk Douglas was able to pull-off a very likeable Dr. Henry Jekyll, as well as a very menacing Mr. Hyde.
The supporting cast of British actors was brilliant.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
