Negative Positive
Title: 2 under rated versions.
Review: Made in 1967,Jack Palance's Jekyll and Hyde is a made for TV adaptation which works very well. The story is so well known it does not need repeating but seems quite new even though the tale presented is just about the same as any other version you've seen. What makes it better is Palance's performance which is very subtle as Jekyll and strident as Hyde without being overblown. Hardly any make up used on his striking features is a big plus,as is the understated direction. 6 years later the same producer and leading man's 'Dracula' is not as successful although still a lot better than most versions and certainly better than Coppolas which stole the idea that Dracula is Vlad Tepes and comes to England to find the re-incarnation of his previous love. It also omits the sanitorium of Dr Steward and Renfield totally, but watch it anyway.Picture quality is good. Extra's are interviews with Palance and producerDan Curtis
Is the review positive or negative? 