Rating: 
Summary: GREAT FILM
Review: A little more sinister than the later Spenser Tracy version, this film is truly one of the greats of all time! March is amazing as the misguided Dr.Compare the different Salvation/damnation endings between the two!
Rating: 
Summary: Two very different versions of the same story
Review: Adapted more from the 19th century stage play than Robert Louis Stevenson's novella, "Dr Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" play very differently with strikingly different results. Both are marvelous in their own individual way. Rouben Mamoulian's classic 1932 film features a stunning performance from Frederic March as Dr. Jekyll. March plays Jekyll in the 1932 film and Spencer Tracy plays the same role in the 1941 version. In both Jekyll discovers an elixir that unleases the animal within. This alternate personality takes the name of Mr. Hyde and commits all the violent crimes that Jekyll might want to do but wouldn't including murder.
The use of filters in front of the camera to do a continuous take for much of the transformation was a brilliant idea. As each filter was removed more of the make up is revealed. Although the final bit of transformation doesn't occur this way it makes Mamoulian's film more convincing than many others from the time that editing for the transformations. Tracy's transformation is much more dependent on his abilties as an actor and less on the make up. Both actors give solid performances in their respective films but March's (which won an Academy Award)certainly is the more reflective and powerful of the two particularly when it comes to becoming Hyde.
March's film is about the lumbering, primative beast within while Spencer Tracy's performance focuses much more on the psychological changes vs. physical ones that occur to Jekyll when he becomes Hyde. The Tiffany studio MGM provides a nice budget, exceptional production design and name actors for their film version. While Tracy does an admirable job as Jekyll his much more subtle take on Hyde doesn't work as well as March's on screen. Evidently Tracy's take on the character was that the potion could be no more than a placebo--all it does is give Jekyll permission to strip away the veneer of civiliation that hides the monster within. Neither Ivy nor the fiance were in the original novel (that I can recall)but their introduction actually adds considerable drama and gives the character Jekyll clearer movitations for many of his actions.
The cinematography for both films is exceptional given the era they were made in. The original negatives for both films are long gone (they were shot on nitrate stock which shrinks and falls apart after a couple of decades). The prints used here are about the best that can be found (much of the issues with the 1932 version mentioned in another review, i.e., how the version shown on PBS looked superior to the DVD version has more to do with the unforgiving clarity of DVD than anything else. The 1932 film does have quite a few analog defects due to the passage of time and the condition of the print this version was drawn from as well. Likewise, the 1941 film although it looks sharper than the 1932 film. The sound for the 1932 film has a bit more presence than the videotape version (it may have been compressed a bit more to make it sound louder)but it has the inherent flaws of any of the early talkies. The 1941 film sounds better with less flaws.
The commentary track film historian Greg Mank is both informative and rich with background on the time the film was made, the actors, the studio and the difficulties that Ramoulian ran into during production (including the fact that the studio insisted on someone other than Fredric March). We also get a classic Looney Tunes cartoon that fits the double bill perfectly. "Hyde and Hare" (which is also now available on the second "Looney Tunes Golden Collection") looks quite good as well.
Rating:
Summary: Horror classic tale on ultimate double feature DVD...
Review: Anyone interested in cinema's depiction of the diabolic dynamic duo of Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde would do themselves a favor by purchasing this disc.
To today's generation of movie-goers: FORGET the recent "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Van Helsing". Dr. Jekyll was not so confused and Mr. Hyde was not the Sasquatchesque CGI lightshow that these flicks have palmed off to the movie-going public.
The 1931 version may be the ultimate film adaptation of R. L. Stevenson's novella. While liberties were taken with Stevenson's tale, the atmosphere and imagery make up for the differences. (According to the commentary, Stevenson's own niece wrote director Rouben Mamoulian a letter praising the film, regretting only that her uncle was not alive to see the film.) Fredric March well deserved the Academy-Award he won for the duelling egos. It is to March's credit that he does not phone-in the Jekyll performance and save the juice for Hyde. His Dr. Jekyll is a compassionate (and passionate) scientist/philanthropist whose vitality slowly disintegrates as "Mr. Hyde" overtakes him. March goes from a charming, vigorous gentleman to a trembling, tortured soul whose final good-bye to his fiance (Rose Hobart) is heartbreaking to watch. When he does change to Mr. Hyde, March again impresses, as he does not let the troglodytic makeup do the acting for him. His Mr. Hyde is a liberated, uninhibited creature - played from within - whose appetites and desires bring terrifying and tragic results. Both performances are tour-de-forces of nature.
The 1941 film does not fare as well, although it is a respectable version. Spencer Tracy is not in his element, although he performs decently. His Mr. Hyde is actually closer to Stevenson's version (having a raspy voice and displeasing smile.) It would have been interesting to see what Robert Donat - MGM's original choice - would have done with the two characters. While the 1931 film was a compact atmospheric frightfest, the 1941 film is an "Illustrated Classics" movie - sumptuous sets, high production values, and comely leading ladies (Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman), and is hampered by not being frightening. In spite of this, it is still well-worth seeing. (Trivia note: March himself liked Tracy's performance very much.)
Also on this disc are the hilarious Bugs Bunny short "Hyde and Hare," a commentary to the 1931 film, and the trailer for the 1941 film.
The musical "Jekyll and Hyde" has the tagline - "its such a fine line between a good man and a bad man." The same can be said of cinema. This double sided dvd is on the side of the line of good cinema...
Rating:
Summary: A teacher's perspective
Review: As an English teacher, and lover of old films, I would have to say that this version of Dr. J. is exceptional. I have reviewed several versions, and this one (while certainly deviating from the original text) is by far the best. Fredric March gives a stunning performance, and the effects are excellent for the time period. The 1941 version, as an example, shows a lack of imagination. This film simply modifies the 1932 film and actually is much worse in its adaptation and effects. The "Hyde" in this film is nowhere near as menacing and terrifying as March's monster. Overall, the acting is first rate (again, considering the time period). The film captures Jekyll's struggle with his evil nature and his dual identity in a way that captivates kids in 2003 as well as I'm sure it did in 1932. Students can see the ideas Stevenson tried to relate through his text come to life on the screen, as well as discuss how Hollywood's adaptations effect the written text. While I doubt R.L. Stevenson would recognize much of his original novel in the movie, he would still be glued to the screen!
Rating:
Summary: March & Tracy: Two Jekylls, Two Hydes, and More!
Review: As fates have decreed, rights for release of both of the talkie theatrical versions of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde have come into the hands of Warner Brothers, which also happens to have in its vaults the most remembered animated cartoon spin-offs on this classic tale of good versus evil in the soul of a man. And DVD collectors are going to benefit greatly from this development with the release of this double feature DVD featuring both the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, with Fredric March in the dual role for which he won an Oscar, and the lavish 1941 remake starring Spencer Tracy as the doctor with the ghastly, chemically induced split personality. Included on this already excellent disc will be the outstanding 1955 Bugs Bunny cartoon short, "Hyde and Hare", in which the beloved rabbit meets both Jekyll & Hyde, with dire circumstances for himself both in reach of Hyde's murderous axe swings and in a rare instance of his own downfall by way of his carrot-craving frailty and a subsequent drinking of Jekyll's drug. Indeed, "Hyde and Hare" is as much about Bugs Bunny's baser side as it is about that of Dr. Jekyll. Hence the title card, with Bugs casting a menacing, dark shadow of himself. Rounding out the additional features on this disc will be an audio commentary by film historian Greg Mank and the theatrical trailer for the 1941 film. And word is that the Fredric March version will be nearer to complete than ever before. Without a doubt, the Fredric March version is a landmark in the history of horror films in its techniques for depicting the transformations, the sexually charged storyline, the attention to ironic detail given to the production design, and the masterful filmmaking decisions of director Rouben Mamoulian. As there is no indication as yet that "Hyde and Hare" will be in upcoming Looney Tunes Golden Collections, this may be the only DVD release that this overlooked and largely underrated cartoon will receive. While I could wish for an even better DVD release of these two films on separate discs, with the other Warner Brothers cartoons that delved into the dark world of Dr. Henry Jekyll as further bonus material, this DVD release is a dream come true for me, long time an appreciator of both films and this particular Bugs Bunny cartoon. Warner Brothers, I salute you on the release of this DVD. 2004 is starting out very promising indeed for this DVD collector!
Rating:
Summary: Rare opportunity to explore the evolution of cinema
Review: As one who never misses an opportunity to add a Spencer Tracy film to my collection, I must admit that I am a bit prejudice because of my view that he is, perhaps, the finest American actor of the 1940-1960 era. But, unlike the other reviewers I much preferred the Tracy version of the story. First, while some of the technical flaws of the Frederick March version may be due to film degradation, it is also clear that sound recording in the 1932 version was far more primitive, something you'll especially notice in scenes where there is movement across a large set. By 1941, not only had the sound recording improved substantially, but the visual aspect of film had also evolved. But, my preference for the later Tracy version goes beyond that. To me the more subtle characterization of Hyde by Tracy captures the reality of the evil side of real people. March's transformation is excessive, more like one would expect from a horror movie, while Tracy seems to be saying that the average man is not grossly different at his best or worst, that it takes little to tip the scales. In particular, the final scene with Lana Turner, you know he is transforming from lover to murderer without ever seeing his face. It's remarkable how very similar the scripts are for both versions, so I suggest watching them in chronological order. While I prefer the Tracy version, I appreciated the opportunity to see and compare the two. And, BTW, you will notice that it would seem more logical for the female leads in the Tracy version to be reversed, but both Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman turn in fine performances, as opposed to Miriam Hopkins (1932) whose performance is a bit over the top.
Rating:
Summary: March Version is Best; Hopkins Sizzles
Review: Even though this does not have the wit of the James Whale/Universal horror films, it is still a great piece. March is outstanding as J/H--his transformation and sinister/goofy portrayal of an apeish Hyde is great acting. This movie is worth watching if only for Miriam Hopkins. What a babe--think of her as the pre-code Cameron Diaz. She certainly seduced me.
Rating:
Summary: Two Opportunities to See Dr. Jekyll Uncork His Id
Review: Fredric March earned an Academy Award for his bifurcated performance in the titular roles of the 1931 version--arguably the best to date--of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, Robert Louis Stevenson's familiar tale of a scientist who uses chemistry to liberate his baser instincts and allow them free reign over his body and behavior. And the Oscar was certainly deserved, as March easily convinces the audience that he is two different and disparate men. As the academic Dr. Jekyll, March is prim and decorous, the epitome of Victorian English gentility. But as the mean and selfish Mr. Hyde, March really cuts it loose and chews the scenery. Part of the transformation can be attributed to the make-up, of course, which makes March look like a snaggletoothed hybrid of simian and Neanderthal. But the make-up alone would not suffice. It is March's brash delivery of dialogue, unusual gesticulations and posturing, and bizarre body language that really sells the unrestrained, vile nature of Jekyll's alter ego. Another outstanding performance in the film is that of Miriam Hopkins. In the role of prostitute Ivy Pearson, both the object of Mr. Hyde's carnal desires and the victim of his sadistic abuse, the amply bosomed and nicely figured Ms. Hopkins can exude a lustful sexiness while simultaneously being personable enough to elicit genuine sympathy from the audience. The direction and cinematography work is also outstanding and contributes greatly to the film's success. Director Rouben Mamoulian keeps the pacing brisk and the story tight, never allowing the audience an opportunity to become distracted or bored. When appropriate, several shots are set up so that the audience literally sees the action from Fredric March's point of view--or at least the camera is skillfully manipulated to make it appear as such--and talented cinematographer Karl Struss is able to frame these shots in such a way that they are natural to the flow of the plot and never feel gimmicky or contrived. Now, the DVD from Warner Home Video would be worth the retail price for the 1931 edition of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE alone. But this is a double feature, folks, and Warner gives the paying public a second good film for the price of one ticket--MGM's 1941 version of the classic horror story. In the 1941 film, Spencer Tracy assumes the two titular roles, and the beautiful Ingrid Bergman takes over the part of the prostitute Ivy. Other than the change of cast and some filmic or narrative "cosmetic" differences, the plot remains intrinsically the same. This film's budget was much larger than the 1931 flick, though, and it also has big-name, high-profile stars in the major roles. Yet despite those assets, this film doesn't quite achieve the pinnacle of the first. The film's major weakness is the palpable miscasting of Tracy and Bergman. Both are fine actors, but Tracy's emotional range and Bergman's general persona make each really unsuitable for the characters they portray. Tracy just isn't able to cut loose to the same degree as March, and he is therefore unable to create a Mr. Hyde that reads as the unequivocal polar opposite of his Dr. Jekyll. As for Ms. Bergman, she's just too classy--on screen and off--for any audience to totally accept her as a woman of ill repute. And while she's certainly as pretty as her predecessor in this role, Ms. Bergman's performing style emanates a sense of continence that makes her Ivy seem celibate, especially when compared to the lusty sensuality that radiates from Ms. Hopkins' characterization. Still, the 1941 version is a pretty good flick in its own right, and it even has a few outstanding moments. One of the best is a dream sequence where Ivy and Dr. Jekyll's betrothed--played by Lana Turner, who probably would be more believable than Bergman in the Ivy role--are transformed into centaur-like horses, with Mr. Hyde riding on their backs and wildly flailing at them with a whip. In addition to the two films, the Warner double-feature DVD also contains a few cool bonus features. With the better of the two films (i.e., the 1931 version), there is an optional audio track that offers a feature commentary with film historian Greg Mank. Also included on the disc is a classic Looney Tunes cartoon called HYDE AND HARE, in which Bugs Bunny crosses paths with Dr. Jekyll and, in more ways than one, experiences the effects of the good Doc's elixir. All in all this is a great double-feature offered at a reasonable price, and lovers of great cinema or fans of the horror genre will undoubtedly be pleased with having this disc in their film collections.
Rating:
Summary: The Dual Sides of Man
Review: Fredric March stars as the infamous Dr. Jekyll, the compassionate, forward thinking physician whose experiment with separating the dual natures of Man ends in tragedy. Jekyll believes Man has both a good and bad sides to his nature, and Jekyll's bad side takes the form of Mr. Hyde, a brutal, repulsive thug who destroys the life of Ivy, a "girl from the wrong side of town," who unfortuantely crosses paths with him. March is excellent in this role, especially as Mr. Hyde. He's almost unrecognizable in his transformation, and he plays both characters with a lot of style. Miriam Hopkins, never a subtle actress, digs into the role of Ivy and makes her sympathetic, sexy, and very memorable. Director Reuben Mamoulian experiments with camera angles in this early talkie, and although some of the close-ups aren't successful, the film never drags or fails to entertain. I've never read the novel to be able to state whether the film is faithful to the text, but the movie could hardly detract from it. It's very good drama/horror.
Rating:
Summary: March! March! He's our man! If he can't do it! No one can!
Review: I can figure why March won an Oscar for his performance in this movie. He can be very scarry when he plays Mr. Hyde. He also does a great job as Dr. Jekyll. Don't matter what other people say,it is not just the best of Jekyll/Hyde movies,it is one of greatest Horror movies you'll ever see.
|
