When I say I watched this on a Monday night, I mean I fell asleep at some point and woke up with a heavy sigh of frustration.
When I woke up, I immediately went back to the movie and navigated back to the last scene I remembered so I could finish it.
Even after all of this, I remember very little about this adaptation. I know I should know who Jack Palance is. I have heard his name before, but I still have no clue what medium he is most famous for. Television? Film? Stage? Not a clue! Give me a minute.
*insert me doing a Google search*
Okay, so he has mostly appeared in film, playing villainous roles. He also won an Academy Award in 1991 for City Slickers. A movie I haven’t seen and maybe should see, I think? Now that we have that out of the way.
I don’t remember much about this film. I seem to have purged the majority of it from my mind. What I do remember, I know I didn’t like. I wasn’t a fan of the portrayal of Jekyll/Hyde. I didn’t enjoy the makeup used to transform Palance into Hyde. To my memory, there wasn’t much nuance in the performances. Normally, I am alright with “evil for evil’s sake”. You’re talking to someone who adores the Halloween franchise specifically because Michael Myers is supposed to embody evil in its purest, most concentrated form that can be housed in a human. This movie, however, didn’t work for me.
I miss Utterson.
There was a “love interest”.
There was a body count.
Palance as Hyde had the most grating laugh.
There was a will, though! I think Dr. Jekyll left me a cast of Mr. Hyde’s forehead.
With that, my friends, I have watched the main adaptations from the 1960s and look forward to what the 1970s have to offer me!
Disco and Times Square when it wasn’t Disney-fied, perhaps? Here’s hoping!
Like so many people, my history with Tim Curry is a long one that began when I was a child, with films like Annie (1982) and The Worst Witch (1986). I branched out into other films like The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), Clue (1985), and The Three Musketeers (1993). Maybe not necessarily in that order because I was consuming inappropriate material pretty early, but (point being) I have a long history with this individual who, honestly, doesn’t really have an equal for me. Any movie that he was in, he made better. He was a uniquely gifted man. He was one of those actors who didn’t just act the part; he embodied everything about the character he was playing until all you saw was that character.
There aren’t too many celebrities that I will genuinely mourn. There are those that I will feel bad about being gone from this world, taking their light with them. Naturally, though, there are those that are going to hurt a lot more, and Tim is one of them. His performances shaped me growing up. There is a part of who he was in my personality.
It’s probably sappy and/or cliché to say these things, but they are true.
Starring: Jerry Lewis, Stella Stevens, and Del Moore
Director: Jerry Lewis
I thought I knew things. I thought I knew that Jerry Lewis was only capable of portraying goofy, bumbling characters. Never mind that I think I’ve only ever seen him in one other movie before watching this one. Never mind that I often heard jokes growing up centered around French individuals believing Mr. Lewis to be a comedic genius (somehow insinuating that he wasn’t). See, I thought I knew. Apparently, though, I know nothing at all, because how did he go from this:
So seamlessly, unexpectedly, and damn impressively convincing?
In case you’re wondering, my friends, this post didn’t come out of nowhere. No, The Nutty Professor (1963) is Jekyll & Hyde adjacent. You have the less-than-popular, often mocked professor experimenting with chemicals to make himself into a suave, confident, and somewhat asshole version of himself. For real, kind of an asshole, but also fascinating. That is really the only part of the Jekyll & Hyde formula (ha! get it?) that this movie follows. There is no Utterson. No murders. This was just zany and funny at times! Although, I will give props to Jerry Lewis playing Buddy Love (our “Hyde” persona) because he will make you feel all sorts of uncomfortable. The twisted part of me may have even been a little attracted to him.
We listen, and we don’t judge!
You know what? I liked it! There really isn’t anything deep about this movie, save for when you get to the end, when the professor learns it’s best to just be himself. Not so profound, no. A good lesson though!
And because this is a comedy and there is no threat of death to any of the characters, there is no will. If there were, though, I would want the professor to leave me a serenade by Buddy Love.
Friends! We finally stepped out of the silver screen and into Technicolor! My eyes were starved for what Technicolor could provide me, given that I watched quite a few movies in black and white since I started this journey. To be honest, I think I’ve seen more black-and-white movies this year than I have collectively watched in all my previous years. Black-and-white movies have their charm, naturally, but there is something to be said for a splash of color.
Real quick, I initially tried to watch this film on Monday night. I made an error in judgment by lying down while watching it and started drifting in and out of sleep. By the time the movie was over, I had absolutely no idea what I had watched. Not to be defeated by my body’s need to recuperate after a long Monday, I sat down (read: my head never touched a pillow, so I was able to stay conscious) on Tuesday evening and rewatched.
So, The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll follows the story of Robert Louis Stevenson, but loosely. We still have our good doctor experimenting with things he shouldn’t, still very much trying to separate “good” from “evil”. There are some very big differences, though. In this story, Dr. Jekyll is married to Kitty (Dawn Addams), who is, in turn, having an affair with Dr. Jekyll’s “friend” Paul (Christopher Lee). Oh, don’t worry! This isn’t a spoiler. We find out right there at the beginning of the film that they are having an affair when they embrace and kiss, with Jekyll not more than 40 feet away. As with the other films, when Jekyll turns into Hyde, he does have an affair with a dancer from a club/cabaret named Maria.
However, Hyde is obsessed with Kitty. Maybe obsessed is a bit much. Hyde is the first to realize that Kitty is having an affair with Paul and sort of makes it his mission to engage with her. I should probably encourage, if you’re going to watch this, to check for your triggers because Hyde – and I’m trying to say this delicately about this very not delicate event in the film – is not nice to Kitty. If you catch what I’m trying to say. Now, assault was alluded to in a few of the other films. While the way the assault is approached is not graphic by today’s standards, it’s definitely more overt than what was presented in the other movies.
The performances were great! Christopher Lee is always a joy to watch. Dawn Addams is pretty good. Paul Massie? I’m so confused by this portrayal. Alright, first, let me say that this was the first film in which the main character wasn’t presented as transforming from a man into something “monstrous”. We start off with Dr. Jekyll. Beard. Weird haircut. His entire color palette is gray. His voice is manipulated to be deep and monotone, stuck in his intellect sort of way. On the other end of the spectrum, Hyde is presented as a man, not a monster on the outside. Clean-shaven. Neater hair. A higher-pitched voice. Still monotone, but it falls somewhere between psychotic and robotic. Hyde was, genuinely, unnerving without having to be an outward “other”.
I, honestly, don’t know what to make of this portrayal. Hyde says a few times in the film that he has no feeling. Are we psychotic or are we robotic? I don’t know! Massie’s portrayal of Hyde is much more captivating than that of Jekyll. It was good. It worked for this film.
Another thing that stood out: this was a Hammer film, so there was a body count. I guess that is to be expected, right? Hammer film. We are going into a new decade with new standards. The decade that gave us the likes of Hitchcock’s Psycho and Romero’s Night of the Living Dead. Times, they are a changin’! I expect things to gradually become more and more graphic and/or upsetting.
Oh, I can’t remember if there was a mention of the will. If there was, let’s pretend Dr. Jekyll left me the snake.
I will start off by saying that I don’t have any tattoos. It’s not something I, personally, would want to do because I’m fairly certain the needle would come two inches away from my skin, and I’d probably vomit. Now, if I had to get a tattoo right now? It would absolutely be a ladybug! No reason. I just really like ladybugs!
I feel like I’m about to half-ass this. Friends, I zoned out while trying to watch this. This time around, Dr. Jekyll had a daughter. I say “had” because there is technically no Dr. Jekyll in this movie. Well, there was a Dr. Jekyll in spirit? Yes, there was a Dr. Jekyll in spirit because, in this movie, he is dead (much like he was when we talked about his son a few posts back). Dead, and that Jerkface McGillicuddy didn’t leave me anything. Oh sure, he left his daughter a bunch of money and his fancy estate. Me? Nada. Not even a quarter for the payphone.
Anyway, I was so bored. I was so bored that my mind started wandering, and I found myself jolting back into attentive mode, only to realize I really didn’t know what was actually going on. I got the gist. And because the gist is the major reveal at the end of the movie, I can’t even share it, just in case someone wants to watch it later.
Even though this wasn’t for me, it doesn’t mean it’s not worth a watch. I’m assuming. I zoned out, remember? So, maybe you should watch it. Maybe. Or not, I dunno.
I was bored! That’s all I know. Or I’m uncultured. Both can be true.
We have found another comedic adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s story! Now, while the previous comedic film (Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde) made me giggle, this film actually made me guffaw. Like, serious, loud, and obnoxious laughter. Apparently, Lou Costello’s delivery of his lines is my type of humor, because I found myself thinking, “Same, dude.” His character reacted the same way I would have reacted. It was a mixture of “are we seriously doing this right now?” and “let’s do literally anything else”.
This story follows Slim and Tubby (I know, awful), two Americans who, for some reason, are in London to learn from the police there. Needless to say, they are inept and quickly thrown off the force. Meanwhile, you have Dr. Jekyll (played by Karloff), who is terrorizing London and lusting after his ward. Slim and Tubby get the brilliant idea to apprehend the killer, thereby ensuring they will be asked back to the force. Hijinks ensue!
I relate so much to Tubby (Costello). He saw some strange shit going down and was like, “Naw, I’m good”. This is the correct reaction to have to movie monsters unless you’re sure you can win! And is your name Nancy Thompson? No? Then why are you going after the scary doctor who wants to murder your face?
This movie was fun. If you are in the mood to guffaw – I think everyone should partake in a good guffaw at least twice a month – this is a good place to start! True, it’s not exactly scary or faithful to the source material, but I wasn’t mad at this adaptation. I may actually have to seek out more Abbott and Costello films thanks to this Jekyll and Hyde detour.
Tubby: Hey, Slim? Slim? I gotta go home. I forgot something.
Because my workday was super long (or, at least, it felt that way), I’m going to rapid-fire the movies I watched in July with a yes, no, or maybe and why.
Maybe. It’s gorgeous, and the performances are very strong, but you definitely have to like a certain kind of brooding or be in a brooding sort of mood. Also, I think this is one of the closest adaptations to the book I’ve seen! 8.7/10
Yes! If you’re uncomfortable while watching this movie, you’re supposed to be. Yes, Bear is a horrible human. Everyone in the film did a terrific job. If Inde Navarrette doesn’t win a slew of awards, I am going to be surprised and then pissed off on her behalf. 9.4/10
No. I have enjoyed Chevy Chase in exactly one movie, and this wasn’t it. There are parts that are mildly amusing, but I don’t have the kind of love for this that other people (particularly in my family) do. 5/10
Yes! Is it high art? No. Did I have a lot of fun with it? Absolutely! 8.8/10
I think I ended July pretty strongly, and I didn’t even include the two Jekyll and Hyde adaptations to this list. My movie watching for August has started off slowly, but I’m hoping to pick up the pace this weekend.
I hope everyone’s movie-watching has been going well! I’m open to recommendations!
When it comes to reading (and I do a lot of it), not all tropes are built the same. At least, not for me! There are tropes that I eat up every single time. Seriously, if a trope I love is mentioned in the synopsis – and even if it’s in a story I wouldn’t normally be attracted to – I am absolutely more likely to buy the book, add it to my wishlist, or see if I can get it from KU or Libby. I will gradually start highlighting those tropes, but tonight I was thinking of the tropes I have very, very rarely enjoyed, but want so to love! There are plenty of them. Where, oh where, should I begin? Ah, I know!
I can’t really explain why this one offends my delicate sensibilities so much. I have tried so hard to love reading about former lovers getting their second chance. More often than not, I end up setting the book aside and never picking it up again. Give me a moment to contemplate my dislike.
For real, I need a moment. Maybe listen to a song. I recommend In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida by Iron Butterfly. Rock out while I think.
……
……
……
……
……
I thought about it. I don’t love second-chance romances because I feel like I’m missing a very important portion of the history between said characters. There has yet to be a book with this trope that presented the material in a way that fills the gap and convinces me I should care. There has yet to be a story with a dual timeline that was written well enough for one timeline to complement the other. Now, as my friends and family will tell you, I am notorious for choosing books that I end up feeling just “meh” about or not finishing because I just cannot push myself through something I know I am going to give a low rating to. I don’t want to do that because it’s not the book or the author’s fault, really! Chances are, I could pick up another book by the same author that doesn’t include second-chance romance and love it.
This is one trope I am not going to give up on, though! One day, I will find a second-chance romance that was written for me!
Until then, I will likely continue to judge those fictional couples trying to make a second go of it.
