Those who might take a gander at The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde released in 1968 might think it a BBC production as it looks very much like it could be. Surprisingly, it was shot in Toronto, Ontario, a co-production between Canada and the United States and made for television. With that, many might think this production by Dan Curtis is automatically inferior to those released on the big screen and yet, it turns out to be one of the best, if not the best, adaptations of this classic property.

The material itself was well-written, Ian McLellan Hunter did a great job with the script and Charles Jarrott would give it the steady hand it needed with nothing overly fancy or distracting in his direction. The film looked good and delivered what was needed, a haunting, gothic landscape in old London where a man looks to make good on his experiments to better the human experience. Suffice it to say like all men of vision during those darker ages, Dr. Jekyll would be looked upon as a fool and scoffed at. Nobody thought his work worthy of merit or exploration and so, as he begins to dive into it, Jarrott paints a portrait of a man looking to make his mark and just when he is on the cusp, Jarrott slowly but surely begins to introduce the needed horror elements into his picture to draw the audience in deeper. It also shines a light so to speak, upon Henry Jekyll and the man who is both his polar opposite and his other self – Edward Hyde.

A film is only as good as its star as they say, for even if everything else is right, the wrong actor or actress can make or break a movie and here, it is Jack Palance that takes center stage and he was indeed, the right man for the job. Palance, known more for his Western features than anything else though he would star in a variety of films throughout his career, was not a man one would think to star in a horror movie. It would be almost hard to accept at first, the man seeming so out of place in what one knew to be coming and yet, as he moved from scene to scene, one could see the confidence that he brought to every role and he had everything right to play both hero and villain in this picture. His Jekyll is a calm and collected man, one who is ever polite and polished and the cream of society. Hyde on the other hand is an uncouth boor, a man who is rude and violent and not afraid to go ever further when his emotions tell him to. He goes so far in fact, that his villainy transfers to his alter-ego and when all is said and done, they both pay the penalty for the crimes they have wrought.

Another win this movie can chalk up is the makeup that Palance sports as Mr. Hyde. At first, it seems fairly low-key consisting of a simple unibrow and there is a moment where some might find it hilarious. After a short time though, one can see the shading from the blender used and the possible cheek implants which are most likely cotton balls. Even more effective is the demeanour of Palance when he plays the monster and when combined with what seems a simplistic use of makeup, it becomes something even Roger Corman would envy. Palance is Dr. Jekyll and even more impressive, he is Mr. Hyde and after seeing him as that dangerous second self, it is hard to think of anyone else doing as good a job.

With a cast that also features Leo Genn, Denholm Elliot, Billie Whitelaw, and Torin Thatcher, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde does not lack for talent but it is Palance who is remembered out of the bunch. The man is scary, commanding, brutal and physical and defines both characters better than any who would take up the role before or after, making this a must-see both as a horror movie and a literary adaptation.

4 out of 5