writtenbymkm-583-902097 Robert Louis Stevenson's wonderful story (107 pages long in the small paperback edition that contains three of his other stories) is one of my all-time favorites. It's totally depressing that not one attempt has ever been made to film a movie that's true to Stevenson's work. It's almost as though no one in Hollywood has ever read the actual story. Or maybe they just don't care, they don't think it's dramatic enough, or scary enough, or interesting enough, they have to "Hollywood it up." In any case, this particular version is a joke, probably farther from the original story than any other movie I've seen or heard of. It really is absurd. If you don't understand what I mean, go read the story.

LeonLouisRicci The Sex is more Salacious and the Color is more Dominant in this Hammer Horror. Two Things that the Beloved Studio Honed in the Fifties with Their Modernization of the "Famous Monsters of Filmland". This one has an "Ahead of its Time" Feel.The Classic Story from Robert Louis Stevenson is given somewhat of a Twisted Facelift here and it is Shocking but Not in the Way You Think. Hammer Emphasizes, even more than usual, the Victorian Sexual and Moral Hypocrisy. Cab Driver..."It's only wicked if you're poor." Some of the more Close-Up Sexuality and Overtly Crude Dialog was deemed to Explicit for American Audiences in 1960 and was Cut for Stateside Distribution. Thankfully the Film can now be Seen with the Footage Restored and the Beautiful, but Gaudy Costumes and Sets can be Relished in Blazing Color in HD on Blu-ray.Christopher Lee wanted a Non-Monster Role and He Plays a Womanizing, Adulterous, Cad who is Addicted to Gambling, Abuses Alcohol and Drugs, and is a Nasty "Gentleman" to say the least. He Plays the (Non-Monster?) Character with an Energy of Enthusiasm.Gracing the Screen alongside Jekyll and Hyde is Dawn Addams a Red-Headed Beauty that also Throws Herself into the Role of Dr. Jekyll's Wife and Lee's Mistress. Paul Massie Paints both Faces as a Depressingly Doomed and Suffering Creature.But some of the Dialog and Exposition are a bit Unclear about Motivation. Massie does OK but is Burdened by some Overwritten Scenes and some of it seems Forced.Overall, a Wonderful Looking Movie that is Different and it does have an Edge to it. Not as Well Formed as the other Classical Hammer Offerings but it Sure is a Treat to Watch.

GusF The second of three Hammer films based on the Robert Louis Stevenson classic, this film has a wonderful script. Christopher Lee and Dawn Addams were excellent as Paul Allen and Kitty Jekyll. It has a great supporting cast, most notably Francis de Wolff and David Kosoff, and features a very early film appearance by the 22-year-old Oliver Reed. It should be one of my favourite Hammer films and would have probably been in my top ten or even my top five if it weren't one thing: Paul Massie as Jekyll and Hyde. Massie, a mostly and justifiable forgotten Canadian actor with an undistinguished career, could not act to save his life. He delivers all of his lines as both Jekyll and Hyde in a dull, halting monotone, hardly ever expressing any emotion in either his voice or face. He is so thoroughly out-acted by everyone else in the film, particularly Lee and Addams, that it is almost embarrassing. He ruins an otherwise excellent film with his awful performance(s) and makes for the least engaging leading man or woman in any film all year. He makes George Lazenby looks like Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud combined. Obviously, I'd like every film that I watch to feature good actors tackling good scripts but, in a choice between the two, I've always preferred to watch a good actor tackle a bad script than a bad actor tackle a good script and this is an example that I will use in future as to why. I presume that Hammer considered its established, reliable actors like Peter Cushing and André Morell, both about 20 years Massie's senior, to be too old to play Jekyll and Hyde. However, it would have been nice if they had picked someone who could actually act. And, of course, Christopher Lee was already in the film. From younger actors who worked for Hammer by 1960, my choice would have been Francis Matthews.8/10. The other parts of the film are so good that I can't give it less than that. With an actor in the lead role(s), this would have been a 10/10 without any shadow of doubt whatsoever.

blitzebill This is an interesting approach to a classic tale.Christopher Lee, as mentioned in other reviews here, gets to spread his wings a bit.We get to see him out of his cape and attitude in this Hammer production, which is atypical for Hammer too.But he's not the focal point. Paul Massie is, and he does a decent job with his dueling identities.Some of the extra-loose morals and gratuitous language and violence certainly give the Victorian era we've come to know and love a new identity.Dawn Addams is hot.'Nuf said. She could have been better utilized in the story, but I'm not complaining.Anytime she's on screen in ANY film, I'm watching.The scenes with the can-can are well-produced and choreographed. Reminds me of the film "CanCan" which was just on TCM.Overall, this film is worth watching to see how fast and loose the story runs when compared with the earlier versions of the famous Stevenson classic.