The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968 TV Movie) User Reviews

genuinely entertaining

[widescreenguy · 8/10 · 11 March 2007]

I remember the television broadcast and knew of Palance at that time, but I didn't have much to compare performances or know what to look for.

I just remember it was an outstanding production with full credit going to Palance in the lead role.

then last week eureka!! I found the DVD in a 2nd hand shop and snatched it up right away.

the devilishness and morphing from Jekyll to Hyde was incredible. it won a batch of Emmy's and its no wonder. Jack Palance was a very gifted actor and had a certain honesty about him, a dedication to his craft that goes beyond the adulation and wealth other hollywooden types seek.

and that thing about push ups at the Oscars will go down in the history of entertainment. very inspirational too, a man in his 80s doing 1 arm push ups on live TV !! thank you Mr Palance for many years of tremendous entertainment and this is certainly among them. if you have a chance to see this film do so.

Mr Hyde is on a rampage in Victorian London. But what of Dr Jekyll?

[snicewanger · 8/10 · 25 August 2015]

This is easily my favorite version of the Robert Louis Stevenson monster tale. Jack Palance is ideally cast as Mr Hyde. He is physically strong, athletic, menacing, and quite vicious when crossed.Legendary make up artist Dick Smith created Hyde's Satanic look. Palance's Dr Jekyll is effective as well.He plays him as socially awkward and uncomfortable with his emotions. An excellent supporting cast includes Denholm Elliot, Leo Genn, Oskar Homolka, and Torn Thatcher. Billie Whitelaw plays Gwyn as sexy,vulnerable and the object of Hyde's sadistic lust.

Dan Curtis became a master of Gothic story telling and he gets strong performances from everyone involved. He capture's the look of London in the 1880's with its foggy and gas lit back streets with help from set dresser Fred Brown.Robert Colbert's eerie theme music would later show up in Curtis's Dark Shadows

A chillingly good story and outstanding performances make this one a must for any horror film connoisseur.8 out of 10.

One of the better versions of the classic story.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 15 August 2012]

In the late 1960s, Dan Curtis made a name for himself by being the executive producer and writer for "Dark Shadows". In addition, he made a few made for TV horror films--including "Dracula", "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and this film, "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde".

One problem with this and all other versions of the story I have seen is that they have the same actor play both Dr. Jekyll AND Mr. Hyde. I say this is a mistake because in Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, the reason why folks could not believe the two men were one was that Hyde was SIGNIFICANTLY shorter than the doctor. In other words, films only use a bit of makeup to make the transformation and the two invariably look too similar to make the story very convincing.

Unlike the movie versions of the story made during the sound era, this one is unusual in that it jumps right into the action. Within a few minutes of the start of the film, Dr. Jekyll has already created his elixir to transform himself into a less restrained persona, Mr. Hyde. His motivations and good works he did before the transformation are really not explored in any depth like other films. I don't think this is a bad thing--just different.

Another thing that was a bit different is that this version is quite a bit more violent than other versions (such as the Frederic March and Spencer Tracy films). Hyde stabs and beats a lot of folks for kicks and seems more nasty than usual. Again, not a bad thing at all--just different. Plus, the awfulness of Hyde is well in keeping with the spirit of the novel.

I think the thing that surprised me the most is that Jack Palance was quite good. He was intense as Hyde and quite restrained as Jekyll. The film also looked exceptional. In particular, the streets of London were quite striking as were the costumes. They got the look down quite well--far better than you'd expect for a made for TV production. As a result, it's about as good a version as you can find--though, as I pointed out above, it sure would be nice to see a version closer to the book in regard to how Hyde looked.

The best version of the story I have ever seen

[tomh46 · 14 October 2006]

I saw this movie when it first came out on TV and at least one other time on TV. Seems like it was made for TV by the Canadian Broadcasting Company, as I recall. I had read the book and had seen several movie versions and was delighted at the vigor and believability that Jack Palance brought to the title role(s). As someone else has said here, I think it was the closest rendition of the book as well. He was good as both the good doctor and as Hyde, but was remarkable in bringing Hyde to life without much makeup, rather with the strength of his acting. His physical vigor was a part of it too, dashing through the streets, doing violence with his sword-cane in the action scenes, and I think I remember him leaping across the furniture in a pub in one scene. I'm glad to read here that it is out on DVD and will look forward to seeing it again.

Not bad

[FRANKDRAFTING · 7/10 · 2 October 2006]

Jack Palance gives a darn good performance and the atmosphere is outstanding. One of the best adaptations out there. I've always been a Palance fan, so I am a bit partial, but this is good, Gothic horror. Not bloody or gory, just atmospheric. Worth a Friday night viewing.

I love the old, classic horror movies. Frankenstein, Dracula, etc. etc., and this movie has that sort of feeling, with a dash of Hammer in there. The movie moves briskly and keeps your attention throughout. The story, of course, is about the duality of man and shows how we can all become nasty, selfish creatures when our conscience isn't functioning. Palance, as Jekyll, is almost too shy but as Hyde he shows all the passion of a man living his life solely for himself, without a care for any one else'e feelings or safety. He is brutal and brash and really shows us how we, as humans, on one hand can love and want to help others and, on the other, can become all that is evil and loathsome to our fellow creatures. This story is, perhaps, more relevant today than at any other time in man's history.

A fine TV version of the story

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 6 February 2018]

This film is another adaptation of a classic horror novel by Dan Curtis, the man who pretty much owned TV horror in the 1960s and 1970s. Jack Palance gives a very good performance in the dual role, and this version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel, although hampered by the TV budget, is appropriately authentic and atmospheric. Dick Smith, the man behind THE EXORCIST, supplies the make-up effects, which are unusual and effective, and some seasoned character actors like Leo Genn and Denholm Elliott work well in support. One stand-out is a young Billie Whitelaw as a prostitute, who receives an 'introducing' credit. The film is slightly overlong at two hours, but the scenes of high drama are effective, and the transformations, although low fi, really work.

" When I see a ray of light I move towards it; unlike you who remain in the dark "

[thinker1691 · 10/10 · 21 November 2008]

Amid the long lists of accomplishments, for actor Jack Palance, is this truly remarkable film achievement. Robert Louis Stevenson created his memorable set of characters; humanitarian Jekyll and terrifying Mr. Hyde, never realizing how many thespians would attempt to personify his creations. On stage and later in Hollywood several actors tried. From the 1930s' to a modern interpretation involving Michael Caine, a dozen actors have attempted the duel parts. Many are consider excellent, but for my money, the very best is none other than Jack Palance as Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde. I suppose its because, Jack Palance throughout his movie career, has established himself as a reputable heavy. No one, including myself, had ever seen him emulate a respectable, sophisticated and admired medical man of science. His performance in this role is nothing short of magical, nay, electrifying. For the first time in film history, has an actor stun the audience with such an incredible performance, as to leave them applauding him with praise and wonderful accolades. To his credit, his fellow actors believed that as well. They included Denholm Elliott as Mr. George Devlin, Leo Genn as Dr. Lanyon, Torin Thatcher as Sir John Turnbull and wonderful Oscar Homolka as Stryker. You may see other film adaptions of this horror tale, but in my opinion, few to equal this version. *****

The best version

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 18 October 2014]

Of the versions personally seen, only one comes close and that's the Frederic March version. John Barrymore's one is also still very good and Burbank Films Australia's animated version surprisingly good too, didn't care all that much for the Spencer Tracy film but even that wasn't too bad. Before seeing this, I would have considered the March film the best version but now it'd be this one. So good in fact that aside from that it was shot in the video-tape way you forget that you're watching that it was made for TV because everything was so well and professionally done. While I would have preferred the camera work to be more expansive, the video-tape didn't really cheapen things at all. The whole adaptation looks great, the lighting has that atmospheric Gothic touch, the costumes are sumptuous and the sets and the way they look make you feel like you're there in Victorian London and with the characters, which is remarkable for a made for TV film to do. London looks so beautiful and evocatively creepy at the same time, and how the fog is done and used really stands out in terms of visuals and atmosphere. Adding a lot also is Robert Cobert's score, which is very haunting without ever being obvious, it's not as spooky as the score he did for 1973's Dracula(also directed by Dan Curtis and starring Jack Palance, which is also worth seeing but not quite as good) but is so in a different kind of way.

As an adaptation, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde may not be word for word, detail for detail to the Stevenson classic with a few changes and additions but actually all the major details are intact and so is the spirit of the story, and it does this more successfully than any of the other versions. The idea of Dr Jekyll being responsible for the crimes due to Hyde not being a whole person, as heard in Devlin's line "You don't understand, do you? Jekyll deserves to die - he's the one who's responsible, not you", was an interesting angle and came off very well, plus it was entirely plausible. The dialogue is very thoughtfully adapted and is well-written dialogue judging it on its own. The story is very suspenseful, the scariest parts actually being genuinely so, and entertaining at all times, especially with any scene with Mr. Hyde, it was good also that it got straight to the point instead of being bogged down by filler, even more remarkable is that it managed to be loyal to such a timeless and well-known story and make it feel fresh.

It is more violent than the other Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde adaptations, but not in a gratuitous way. Curtis' direction is as solid as rocks, and the characters carry the narrative beautifully, the most interesting of course is Jekyll/Hyde but the other characters are hardly given short shrift, Devlin actually is just as much and has some of the adaptation's most memorable lines. The performances from all are terrific, the best in support being a sensual Billie Whitelaw and Denholm Elliot in one of his more sympathetic performances. But it is Jack Palance who walks away with the acting honours, as he rightfully should, managing to make Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde completely different from one another without making Jekyll too mannered or dull or Hyde too over-the-top or completely brutish, both of which is what makes this iconic dual role tricky. He does superbly as both Jekyll and Hyde, loved the refinement and nobility he brought to Jekyll, possibly Palance at his most restrained, but he is even better as Hyde, as well as being one of the most physical and brutal in the role he is also the one that comes off the most genuinely scary and passionate, he hams it up just a tad but actually in this case that was what made the performance fun to watch. Overall, a brilliantly done version of a classic and the best version seen so far. 10/10 Bethany Cox

Strange Things Do Happen

[IcyTones · 5/10 · 26 November 2020]

Jack Palance gives an outstanding performance as both Dr Jeckyll & Mr Hyde.

The dancing, the laughter, the music, the singing, the volume of the character all adds to it being my favourite version or the most memorable version of the Jekyll & Hyde movies - for me.

It's a late 60s British Movie.

Atmospheric Victorian Thriller!

[FOCKLERRC · 10/10 · 19 September 2002]

This was the first version of the story I ever saw so I may be a bit biased. As a long time student of this genre and of this story in particular, I can say that while not the Stevenson novella verbatim, it is still much closer than other adaptations. Of particular note are the references to drug addiction of young people in Victorian London. Mr. Palance gives a bravura performance in the dual role. Is it my imagination or does the Mr. Hyde make-up created by Master Make-Up Artist Dick Smith resemble classic depictions of Satan or perhaps the Satyr? Dan Curtis assembled an excellent cast in a sterling production. The new DVD version offers enhanced picture and sound quality as well as various subtitles for your viewing enjoyment. You may consider this video/DVD a valued asset to your collection of this strange story of one man's fascination with man's dual nature. Perhaps there is a bit of Edward Hyde in all of us!

Great TV movie

[BandSAboutMovies · 5/10 · 25 March 2020]

Directed by Charles Jarrott (Condorman), written by Ian McLellan Hunter (he won the Oscar for Roman Holiday, which was really written by the blacklisted Dalton Trumbo; Hunter was later blacklisted as well) and produced by Dan Curtis, this made for ABC TV movie originally aired on January 7, 1968 as part of ABC's Wide World of Mystery.

Rod Serling wrote the original draft of the script, with Jason Robards set to star. The actor was unhappy with the script and there was a technician's strike in London, so eventually, Robards just walked away and Jack Palance took over the role.

Palance - born Volodymyr Palahniuk - had the tough guy edge to be a perfect Hyde. His Jekyll is what really makes this role, that he can be two totally opposite sides so well. Credit also goes to Dick Smith, who not only created satyr-like makeup for Hyde, but subtly fixed Palance's nose so that he appears more handsome as Jekyll.

Denholm Elliott - later to be Marcus Brody in the Indiana Jones movies - shows up, as does Torin Thatcher, Billie Whitelaw (Mrs. Baylock from The Omen!) and Welsh entertainer "Two Ton" Tessie O'Shea.

If you watch the later scenes in this movie, you'll notice that Palance is only using his right arm. that's because he broke his left during a stunt gone wrong.

Dark Shadows viewers will pick up on the fact that most of the music in this comes directly from the show. When Jekyll goes to the bar for the first time, listen for "Quentin's Theme."

Has an incredible amount of impact.

[jburtroald95 · 10/10 · 20 October 2009]

Robert Louis Stevenson's book was more of detective story than anything else, hence its called "The Strange CASE of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". It is about Dr Lanyon hearing of these unusual and horrific events and trying to piece them together, and in the final few chapters (Jekyll's letters) the story is finally told. As a book, that was very interesting, though as a film this would have been rather dull, and it is much more exciting to see these events unfold on a screen.

The story is very well-known, a scientist splits his personalities and creates an inhuman tyrannical demon that destroys the lives of both of them as well as many others. Only in the book Jekyll invented the drug because he thought that as every man had only one life and two sides, it is impossible to leave a life that satisfies the urges of both of these sides. So he splits them and tries to lead to separate lives, each undisturbed by the other, though of course he fails. Here it is merely out of reckless curiosity, he does something purely because he can without stopping to think if he should.

It also suggests the idea that Dr Jekyll is responsible for Hyde's murders, not Hyde. This is because Hyde isn't a whole person, therefore he can't be judged as a real person or held responsible for his actions. Hyde is the dark side of Jekyll, and nothing about Hyde wasn't already inside the doctor. Jekyll should never have empowered him and let him run loose. I would agree with this.

A brilliant display of fine performances and dialogue, as well as some very interesting imagery, Dan Curtis' adaptation is a delight.

In particular, Jack Palance is extraordinary in both roles. Showing us carelessness and selfishness and in the end fear and desperation in Jekyll as well as impulsiveness, anger and just pure evil in Hyde.

Outstanding! Particularly towards the end.

Excellent

[dquick · 28 September 2002]

Jack Palance seems made for this role. As the mild mannered Henry Jekyll, Palance is subdued, allowing none of his usual acting intensity to mar the characterization. As Hyde, Palance comes alive as he does in many films, relishing his own evil (Dracula, Barrabas, Scrooge). This film's focus is not on the horrifying transformation from Jekyll to Hyde that you expect to see. In fact, you don't see the first one, and Jekyll only learns about it by people telling him what happened the night before when Hyde appeared.

The makeup for Hyde is not drastically different from Palance's own appearance; he is ugly but not hideous. In fact, he looks, dresses, and behaves like a womanizing Cary Grant on a drunken rampage. He has fun drinking and whoring and giving everyone something to talk about later, but then he begins to take over Jekyll's personality. Denholm Elliot is Devlin, Jekyll's friend and "savior".

I've only seen the Barrymore version in comparison. Barrymore is a much more monstrous Hyde, but both versions are excellent.

Excellent adaptation

[bekayess · 10/10 · 25 September 1999]

I first saw this TV version of "Jekyll and Hyde" on Sunday night, January 7, 1968 (I remember for two reasons: I really liked it, and it was my 11th birthday.) I seem to recall, although I could be wrong (help me out if anyone knows) that it was repeated on July 4th of that year. While everyone else in my family was outside watching fireworks, I was in watching Jack Palance give what I consider to be one of his best performances as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde.

Palance evokes sympathy as the doctor, and his Hyde was (and is) pure evil. In two scenes (the beating of Lanyon and the murder of Gwen), Hyde is brutal, uncompromising and without remorse. Billie Whitelaw (Gwen) is a wonderful and under-rated actress. I was really pleased (after several years of not seeing her in anything else) to see her in THE OMEN.

Of the classic horror tales that Dan Curtis adapted over the years, this is the best. It compares favorably with the Frederic March version (the only other version I enjoy), it is superior to MGM's glossy Spencer Tracy version, and it makes the musical version (with Kirk Douglas as the doctor) look like the joke that it was.

Rent it and enjoy!

The first version that makes sense--and tells the truth

[slothropgr · 9/10 · 3 August 2009]

The perfect supplement to the melodramatic soap-operatic March version of 1932, that polluted so many later versions. It's the first to satisfactorily solve the two main difficulties: the make-up and the motive. The big problem is how to make Hyde look sufficiently different from Jekyll without turning him into something that in a real world would be caged in a zoo. The Tracy version is the one extreme--the fact no one recognizes Hyde as Jekyll after a 3-day bender is absurd. The March is the other, especially toward the end when Hyde becomes positively simian (and March has all but given up trying to enunciate around those godawful teeth). This version solves the problem neatly, by casting an actor (Jack Palance) who starts out looking more like Hyde than Jekyll. In fact Dan Curtis has said they used almost as much make-up to soften Palance's appearance for Jekyll as they did to turn him into Hyde. As to motive: this version cuts out the romance that in earlier versions provided the impetus for Jekyll drinking the potion, and substitutes a motive that even Stevenson didn't have the courage to recognize. As Devlin sums it up at the end: "Hyde was just a chemical concoction. The real monster was Jekyll."

Marvelous! Curtis does it again!

[rob_h · 30 December 2000]

I remember seeing this one split up over two late nights on ABC in the early 1970s. I was mesmerized and excited; I've longed to see the film again and recently got my chance! As soon as I found out it was available on DVD I bought it. Lots to be nostalgic about here: for instance, that wonderful videotape quality of the visuals (even more vivid now that the thing is out on DVD). Jack Palance hams it up as Hyde: a friend who saw the movie with me said he looked like a muppet during the scene at Tessie's music hall! But his Dr. Jekyll is a brilliant character, full of the best kind of noble suffering that a great tragic hero endures. I loved every minute of it. And Robert Cobert's music--all of which was originally used for the great _Dark Shadows_ series--is more haunting than ever. Any fan of _Dark Shadows_ will love this _Jekyll and Hyde_; and any horror fan should enjoy seeing it, too!

One of the best horror movies ever

[jacobjohntaylor1 · 10/10 · 1 September 2015]

This a great movie. It is very scary. If you like really scary movies then you need to see this movie. Doctor Jekyll discover that man has to souls one good one and one evil. He creates a formula that brings out his evil side. His evil side starts to take him over. This is a very scary movie. It is very well written. The acting is great. The special effects. If this movie does not scary you then no movie will. Jack P.a.l.a.n.c.e who played the part of Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde was also in Dracula play the lead part. He was one of the best actors of this time. Dracula was his best movie. This would be his second best movie. This movie is a must see.

A wonderful adaptation and performance from Palance

[CC_qqqwerty · 8/10 · 30 May 2020]

Jack Palance had looks so angular, those knife-like features seemed to be destined to play Frankenstein's monster. Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde - a part that has been adapted countless of times, Palance still managed to convince me as this saintly Jekyll who wanted to repress the darker side of him and regretted all the mess he made, as well as this irredeemable evil Hyde. A man that was both pitiable and terrifying.

Character of Jekyll & Hyde is most faithful to the novel

[kriitikko · 9/10 · 11 June 2004]

This is one of the four Dan Curtis TV horror films that I have seen. Even when Curtis himself does not direct it, Charles Jarrott does a good job. It's a shame that this is only a TV movie. As a big budget film this would be great watching. Story is good. It is both faithful to Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, and it has take that woman that movie needs(they did it also in 1931 and 1941 versions in Hollywood but they are not faithful to the novel).

No doubt: Dr. Jekyll's and mister Hyde's character's are the most faithful one's to the novel. Dr. Jekyll is almost middle aged man how does not have a girl in he's life and how is very shy. Mr. Hyde is cruel and really evil man. Yes, man! The makeup(made by expert Dick Smith) make's him look like a human and that what he was in novel, really ugly and evil human. Not any ape looking or gorilla.

Actors: Jack Palance is wonderful as Jekyll/Hyde. He really makes them just as they are in the book. If there would not have been Fredrick March(in 1931's version)there is nobody that could be as good as Palance. Also Denholm Elliott(RAIDERS OF LOST ARK) as Jekyll's friend and Billie Whitelaw(THE OMEN)as the unlucky girl are doing good job.

Really good version. To all Jekyll & Hyde or Dan Curtis fan's.

There are only certain film genres where over the top and campy really works. Gothic is one of them.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 18 October 2022]

There were only a select number of films that in the middle of Jack Palance's career for his acting style really worked, and you had to be a huge fan of his to put up with a lot of his work when he was the lead. A great start in his career quickly changed with low budget and mainly cheaply produced foreign films, and for that reason, there is a huge gap in his career where he made a ton of crap. This TV version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novel is a rare masterpiece for him, and it's because he is appropriate for this type of role where the style of acting he does here would not be appropriate in westerns, action films and gangster melodramas. "City Slickers" was a huge fluke for him, and his underplaying even with an outrageous character made people stand up and take notice.

There have been umpteen versions of the story, and Palance's variation of the part is truly top notch, aided with great direction, good video photography and memorable performances by Denholm Elliott, Tessie O'Shea and Billie Whitelaw, quite surprising as the floozy involved with Mr. Hyde who destroys her life by making a play for Dr. Jekyll. For those who only know her from "The Omen", this will be a delightful discovery because she is quite attractive even if her character is with few morals. O'Shea scores with some delightful music hall numbers, and Elliott is quite amazing in a truly subtle way.

But this is Palance's film to chew the scenery in a delightful way throughout, and it is very difficult to take your eyes off of him, whether he is under playing as Jekyll or laughing maniacally as Hyde. The scene where he takes on a group of men who have followed him out of the pub where O'Shea performs and Whitelaw searches out generous benefactors is magnificent because it is a combination of both horrific and frightening, setting off a gruesome series of murders that just gets even more devilish, including several where the victim's screams are psychologically haunting. Without a doubt one of the best TV remakes of a classic tale, and Palance stands out along with Barrymore and March and turning in an all-time classic brilliant performance.

The best version of this classic ever made.

[robert-259-28954 · 9/10 · 26 June 2015]

Ever since seeing this TV remake decades ago, I have been a continual fan. In my opinion, this is the single best screen adaptation of the Robert Lewis Stevenson classic ever made. I have seen the greatest actors in the world perform the role, from Fredrick March to Spencer Tracy, and although they were all superb, the often overlooked Jack Palance SHINED in the role, using every bit of his experience to breathe life into this dusty morality play. First, I appreciated their choice of using minimal makeup on him, letting his acting carry the day to breathtaking effect, thanks to the efforts of the iconic Dick Smith. I recall the Tracy version looking so incredibly heavy that he looked like a cross between a deranged monkey and a Neanderthal. But what was so thrilling is how Palance balanced that thin line between civility and crude evil with the grace of a mountain goat, always entertaining, but never going over the top of believability. The way he played both roles was an exercise in restraint. Better yet was the SUPERB all-British cast of seasoned stage and film performers they surrounded him with, including a terrific Billie Whitelaw as the victimized dance hall girl (who also played the demonic nanny in an equally excellent, "The Omen"), a superb Denholm Elliot as the long-suffering best friend, and even a memorable cameo by the great Welsh stage and screen star, Tessie O'Toole, in the most memorable musical number of the entire film. But the only reason that I did not give this wonderful production a well-deserved "ten," was the rather hokey use of video that the producer, Dan Curtis, decided to use (to his utter shame) instead of shooting it on film. Since video was in its infancy at the time and used only in TV, I suppose that his familiarity with the medium was one reason to utilize it, its incredibly inexpensive cost another major factor. But unfortunately, the entire film suffered as a result. As Mr. Curtis was primarily known as the producer of the much hailed horror TV classic, "Dark Shadows," it logically followed that he should continue in his favored genre (including incorporating the same spooky, low budget music score that held him in good stead in the TV series), but overall I think the decision flawed an otherwise perfect film.

Comments on this movie

[synstok · 8/10 · 4 September 2005]

This 1968 version is both intense and entertaining. The performance of the title character by Jack Palance is excellent. His Hyde is at first light hearted but soon turns to what the author Robert Louis Stevenson attended. A total beast with no regards but to act on impulses. I do have a few complaints

1. Why was this movie shot in a video tape format? Is it because the producer Dan Curtis whom also created the horror soap "Dark Shadows" shot this show also in the same format. 2. What's up with the pool in the streets of London? In the second act after a tryst with 2 ladies of the evening Hyde pushes one of the two "working girls" off a bank of steps into a area of water. I never understood that scene. 3. And finally after a meeting with his best friend Devin, Jekyll passes out from exhaustion he pulls down a cage filled with rabbits. I always wondered about those rabbits being injured.