Rating: 
Summary: Two Different Takes on Classic Story
Review: I just finished watching these two old favorites on this dvd and I concur with the earlier comments. I've never seen the '32 version looking so gorgeous! The '41 version always was a top example of MGM gloss and still is. Filmmakers from the beginning - there's a 1911 version on dvd now - realized that RL Stevenson's story could never be faithfully told as he wrote it. Why? Because he wrote a mystery: what is this relationship between Jekyll and Hyde? He does a great job of letting readers imagine a sordid relationship between the two men - blackmail or sex? The surprise ending that the two men were one and the same became too well known to be faithfully depicted. Instead, filmmakers turned the story into a cat and mouse game with the viewer as a de facto accomplice of J/H.That said, these two sound film versions take different approaches to the story and it's really a case of comparing apples to oranges to say one is better than the other. I think that Stevenson himself would have preferred the 1941 version if only because it captured the staid Victorian mindset of the British upper class that he depicted in his novel. Likewise, Spencer Tracy's characterization of Hyde as a master rather than a monster of psychological torture is a great idea. Not necessarily better, but an interesting alternate approach. Fredric March knew he was walking in John Barrymore's footsteps from the 1920 version so his monstrous appearance was probably a given under the circumstances. One last point worth mentioning: Both versions have a major gap in logic in the final scene. We understand why Hyde would seek to escape the consequences of his murdering two people, but when Jekyll is restored in the final scene, how strange that he continues the cover up, refusing Dr. Lanyon's request to tell the police the truth. If you think about it, this action is totally at odds with Jekyll's character. The problem was addresed better in Barrymore's 1920 version: before Hyde takes over again, Jekyll swallows poison to stop Hyde's further atrocities. Good man, that Henry Jekyll!
Rating: 
Summary: Mr. Hyde is all too real
Review: I too felt that March's Hyde reminded me of a Jerry Lewis character, however, as Hyde's malignant personality becomes more apparent, one soon forgets the questionable simian appearence. March does a masterful job of personality change. Watch as he stretches in his initial Hyde persona throwing off the proper Dr. Jekyll. Watch a rapidly fleeing Hyde, fresh from killing his victim, almost comically slow to a brisk walk when nearing people who might otherwise suspect his guilt. There is a relatively contemporary approach to March's Hyde. Like a rabid Dennis the Menace, this Hyde is an irritating bully, abuser of women and sociopathic killer. Miriam Hopkins is brilliant as the abused Ivy living a harrowing nightmare which further accentuates Hyde's evil. Paramount's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a fully realized descent into the dark side of human nature.
Rating:
Summary: GENUINE CHILLS
Review: I was thoroughly impressed with Fredric March's performance in this version (he won the best actor Oscar for this in 1932) and thought the Spencer Tracy film done nine years later wasn't nearly as effective visually or performance-wise. Rouben Mamoulian directed this with meticulous care and it's good fun. Miriam Hopkins gives her classic interpretation of poisonous Ivy and her scenes with Mr. Hyde are amazing. There are dated scenes in the film, such as Dr. Jekyll encouraging the little crippled girl to walk (she's a pain), but one has to rememember the it takes place in the Victorian era. The bland Rose Hobart plays Jekyll's love interest Muriel and Halliwell Hobbes is her properly patient father, the role Donald Crisp played beautifully in the otherwise rather inept 1941 version. Stevenson's classic 1885 horror story was first adapted for the stage in 1887; at the Venice Film Festival, this film was voted "The most original and dramatic film". Censored for re-release in the late thirties, the film was finally restored in 1989 by Turner Entertainment for home video release.
Rating:
Summary: WICKED!
Review: I'm loving these terrific twofers WB Home Video's been putting out recently. This ties with their HOUSE OF WAX/MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM double feature as my favorite dvd release of the past few months (and if you haven't picked up THAT puppy, boy are you missing out...MYSTERY's one of the most uniquely fascinating "Golden Age" horrors, and the dvd transfer is gorgeous...but I digress...) Both JEKYLL AND HYDEs are excellent examples of "old school" horror at its finest, presented in ravishingly lovely crisp transfers, better than they've ever looked before on home video. But for me, the real treat of this edition is the commentary by Greg Mank, my personal favorite Golden Age Horror scholar (and isn't it about time somebody reprinted his "IT'S ALIVE! The Cinema Saga of Frankenstein"?). His commentary here is witty, gossipy, insanely informative, always entertaining. Much of the content previously appeared in his splendid book HOLLYWOOD CAULDRON, but so what? Having it synched-up to the actual movie is a kick.... Good job, WB folks! Now, how about a DR. X / RETURN OF DR. X double dvd....?
Rating:
Summary: GREAT DOUBLE FEATURE!
Review: If John Barrymore's 1920 production was good due to a hybrid first novelization, and the presence of Brandon Hurst unforgettable as Sir George Carew in the cast. Spencer Tracy's 1941 was good because of lavish production value. It's this Fredric March that truly brings the full splendor of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel to the screen. Although they may not have achieved the popularity of Lugosi's DRACULA or Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN, March's portrayal of the obsessed Doctor is still unforgettable as it is impressive. After all he was the only actor to achieve an Oscar for his performance as the title roll in a horror film. Of course, DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE is more than a horror film. It is a tale of love, a tale of the schizophrenic, a tale of the animal nature within ourselves, and a tale of human frailties. Rose Hobart is also great as Jekyll's love interest Muriel Carew, and Miriam Hopkins is still a hottie as Miss "Champagne Ivy is My Name" Ivy Pearson. Holmes Herbert, Edgar Norton, and Halliwell Hobbes also give outstanding portrayals. As for Spencer Tracy's 1941 version, it may not be as good as the 1932 Fredric March film, but it is a real treat due to its' lavish production value, and sensational all-star cast. Ingrid Bergman as Ivy, Lana Turner as the love interest (changed from Muriel Carew to Beatrix Emery, in the John Barrymore it was Martha Mansfield as Millicent Carew), Donald Crisp as Sir Charles Emery (the General Carew character), Ian Hunter as Dr. Lanyon, and an impressive supporting cast including Barton MacLane, Sara Allgood, Billy Bevan, Fredric Worlock, and many others. I remember in the late 1980's when the film was colorized for television viewings, but for some reason the colorized version is hard to find now. Director Victor Fleming was also well known for helming THE WIZARD OF OZ. Thus Tracy's transformations look much more sophisticated as during this time make-up artists now perfected the process with foam rubber appliances instead of cotton latex. Notice how Lon Chaney's THE WOLF MAN, and Glenn Strange's FRANKENSTEIN MONSTER greatly differed from the original make-up designs in ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN as compared to the original films, for instance. A little trivia: That's Brandon Hurst playing Briggs, Dr. Lanyon's Butler. He was memorable as Sir George Carew in the John Barrymore version! There is also the Looney Tunes classic "Hyde and Hare" which alone demonstrates how the films had their influence on pop-culture. Fredric March and Spencer Tracy would ironically star together years later in the courtroom classic INHERIT THE WIND. It is fascinating to watch the transformation scenes. Whether in the laboratory, sitting at a bench in a park, or standing next to a street light, the special effects photography are still enough to make your eyes pop out, and this was some 60 years before computer graphics animation.
Rating:
Summary: Come on, baby, let's hear the organ music!
Review: It's stirring enough for me, whether it moves Poole or not. Poole is as "impregnable as Gibraltar. Even Bach can't move" him. But Poole isn't as unmoveable as all that. In the end he is the only one who can mourn for the fallen Jekyll. I've watched this so many times this year and it's still interesting. Just last night I heard a line that I never heard before. "It's the things one can't do that always tempt me," Jekyll tells Lanyon early in the film. From the very beginning, then, we should be aware of his deep-rooted discontentment and longing for the forbidden. This is really the key line to the whole story. It took me six or more viewings to notice it. I hope, reading this, you'll notice it sooner. This is really a good story, with a perfect cast and wonderful filming. Ivy particularly is very good at playing a scared, hysterical, or alluring woman as the script calls. She is much more realistic when with Hyde than Muriel ever is with Jekyll. For example, Jekyll tells Muriel, "Now, my darling - chide me, mock me, hate me - but don't send me away!" And later on: "We shall go to Devon for our honeymoon. And live on love, and strawberries, and moonlight - endless moonlight!" And Muriel always responds accordingly: "Yes, dahling, with all my heart!" But Hyde and Ivy are a different story. They are much more natural together, even if Hyde is a beast - in that there are fewer melodramatic speeches and more real acting. Ivy has to act terrified in many different ways, while Muriel doesn't have to do much but sit and talk sweetly to her beloved Jekyll - although her devotion is touching. I would say the best scene with Jekyll and Muriel is when he comes to set her free. Freddie did a wonderful job playing the tormented, distressed man who can't explain his reasons for letting her go. "Yes, Muriel, I was hanging out with another woman and I just choked her to death. So I think we'd better part ways, baby." He truly feels terrible for what he has done. He couldn't bear to hurt her so he tells her nothing. He has come so low he doesn't even dare to touch her. But she still loves him, and when he strides away Robert Browning style, she collapses to the piano with a dramatic clash of bass notes. A bit about Hyde the beast. He is really gross and that's an understatement. He gets progressively worse as it goes along. For a long time I couldn't believe it was really him under that makeup, but now after having seen many of his movies, I no longer think that Humphrey Bogart dubbed Hyde's voice. If you listen carefully you can hear Fredric March's accents and inflections coming through, especially when he stops growling for a minute and talks almost like a normal person. I think the teeth were the strongest impediment to his speech - and to his kissing Ivy. Lanyon is quite good as well. He seems to be sweet on Muriel. He calls her by her first name, is always there for dinner even if Jekyll is not, and has the general approval of Muriel's father because he is always punctual. And for some unknown reason, he turns up at the Carew's on Hyde's last night out. I like the scene when he gives Jekyll's lab-in-a-box to Hyde and watches bug-eyed as Hyde transforms back to Jekyll. I should speak of the book here as well and the other version with Spencer Tracy. I have to say this is one example of a movie that is better than the book, for the very simple reason that there is more in the movie - more story, more depth - than there is in the book. The book is good, but the addition of the women in the movie makes the tragedy of the book twice as strong. As for the Spencer Tracy version, it's completely inferior, without any of the depth or artisticness of this earlier version. Ingrid Bergman may have played Ivy well, but she couldn't change the fact that Tracy was the lead, and I think the main problem lay in his being miscast. A priest he could be, yes. Katherine Hepburn's long-suffering husband, yes. But anything else - not really. There is also a book called The House on the Strand by Daphne du Maurier about a scientist delving into the unknown with a drug and his best friend as a guinea-pig. Reading it lately I could see several similarities with the story of Jekyll and Hyde, as far as the chemical yuk itself was concerned and how the people ultimately reacted to it. But back to the movie. It is more than a horror story - it's a tragedy of how a man so loved and respected for his kindness and devotion to his work can fall so low. It's not just about a monster, prowling around tossing little girls into rivers or turning vestal virgins into mummies. It's a story that is very real and moving, because it's full of strong characters to make Jekyll a very desparate character indeed. I can feel sympathy and pity for him even after all he has done. As he said in his confession-scene, "This I did not intend. I saw a light, but I did not see where it was leading. I have gone farther than man should go." This is an excellent movie and you must see it....
Rating:
Summary: dr. jekyll should go hyde
Review: marvelous dvd with two great versions of the classic stevenson tale. certainly the best of any d-h version is the 1932 classic in which frederic march managed to win an oscar despite an all-out scene stealing effort by miriam hopkins, who is absolutely terrific herself. the special effects are amazing for 1932 and put those of the 1941 version to shame. yes, the '41 movie gets its knocks, but how can spencer tracy really be bad in any role? so what if somerset maugham or graham greene said they couldn't tell whether tracy was playing jekyll or hyde? they're a couple of fussy englishmen anyway. at this point i must express my wish that hollywood some day makes a jekyll-hyde movie in which hyde isn't evil but simply a guy who really knows how to enjoy life; sort of a really ugly but more interesting hugh hefner type.
Rating:
Summary: TERRIFYING TWOSOME AT LAST ON DVD
Review: Robert Lewis Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" is basically a Victorian morality tale, about the power and predisposition of mankind for either good or evil. When scientist Henry Jekyll attempts to separate the good from the evil he discovers that the evil is too strong for him and thereafter runs amuck in London as the demonic Mr. Hyde. This DVD contains the two best versions of this film, the all-star glossy 1941 treatment from MGM and the vastly superior, pre-code 1931 Paramount edition starring Fredric March. Directed by Roubin Mamoulian, March's interpretation of Hyde is a tour de force. The transformation sequences - where Jekyll becomes Hyde - are terrifyingly realistic, while the death of bar maid, Ivy (Mirium Hopkins in 1931)is absolutely chilling. True, this version lacks the polish and sheen that MGM brought to the '41 version - but the '31 scares the very soul out of you - and that's all one really should expect from a horror classic. I would like to add that there's nothing inherently bad about the Spencer Tracy version, though the code of ethics by this time prevented this version from indulging in the shock and thrills of its predecessor.
TRANSFER: The one disappointment on this DVD is that the 1931 version of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" was not digitally cleaned up. Age related artifacts including scratches, chips, tears and sometimes excessive film grain are present throughout the entire feature. They distract somewhat from the presentation of the film. In contrast, the 1941 Spencer Tracy version presents a near pristine looking print of the film. Both versions offer a solid, well balanced gray scale of the B&W picture and both are free from digital anomalies. The audio for both is mono but nicely cleaned up.
EXTRAS: The '31 version comes with an audio commentary that is thorough, not just on the production of this version, but also comments on the silent John Barrymore and Tracy versions. This is a historically dense audio track that film buffs will relish. There's also a Bugs Bunny cartoon and the 1941 theatrical trailer - which is really tacky!!!
BOTTOM LINE: Warner Brothers double bill is a must for collectors!
Rating:
Summary: TERRIFYING TWOSOME AT LAST ON DVD
Review: Robert Lewis Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" is basically a Victorian morality tale, about the power and predisposition of mankind for either good or evil. When scientist Henry Jekyll attempts to separate the good from the evil he discovers that the evil is too strong for him and thereafter runs amuck in London as the demonic Mr. Hyde. This DVD contains the two best versions of this film, the all-star glossy 1941 treatment from MGM and the vastly superior, pre-code 1931 Paramount edition starring Fredric March. Directed by Roubin Mamoulian, March's interpretation of Hyde is a tour de force. The transformation sequences - where Jekyll becomes Hyde - are terrifyingly realistic, while the death of bar maid, Ivy (Mirium Hopkins in 1931)is absolutely chilling. True, this version lacks the polish and sheen that MGM brought to the '41 version - but the '31 scares the very soul out of you - and that's all one really should expect from a horror classic. I would like to add that there's nothing inherently bad about the Spencer Tracy version, though the code of ethics by this time prevented this version from indulging in the shock and thrills of its predecessor.
TRANSFER: The one disappointment on this DVD is that the 1931 version of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" was not digitally cleaned up. Age related artifacts including scratches, chips, tears and sometimes excessive film grain are present throughout the entire feature. They distract somewhat from the presentation of the film. In contrast, the 1941 Spencer Tracy version presents a near pristine looking print of the film. Both versions offer a solid, well balanced gray scale of the B&W picture and both are free from digital anomalies. The audio for both is mono but nicely cleaned up.
EXTRAS: The '31 version comes with an audio commentary that is thorough, not just on the production of this version, but also comments on the silent John Barrymore and Tracy versions. This is a historically dense audio track that film buffs will relish. There's also a Bugs Bunny cartoon and the 1941 theatrical trailer - which is really tacky!!!
BOTTOM LINE: Warner Brothers double bill is a must for collectors!
Rating:
Summary: Different from the book, but simply wonderful....
Review: The biggest difference between this film version of Dr. Jekyll and the book is that in the movie Dr. Jekyll is a SEXUALLY FRUSTRATED scientist bent on unlocking the secrets of man's unconscious. Whereas the book explores man's dark side and the lack of religious faith in one (Jekyll) the movie paints a picture of Victorian society's sexual standards. An example is when Poole, seeing his master upset, begs him to go out to a place for gentleman's and "amuse himself". Hyde refuses, saying he is not that type of gentleman.
Yes, Jekyll does discover the serum and take it... but he does not take it a second time until his fiancee turns down his offer to marry immediately and leaves with her father for a two month vacation to Bath. Distraught, Jekyll runs to his lab, drinks his serum and then runs off to find the prostitute that proposistions him earlier in the film.
This movie put Fredric March on the map and for good reason. He plays his dual character with gusto, and his transformation into Hyde is amazingly hideous and ahead of its time. Miriam Hopkins is Hyde's pitiful love interest, but the sexual tension between her and the few scenes she has with Jekyll is thick enough to cut with a butter knife.
Completly engrossing, it's the best adaption of Jekyll/Hyde to date.
|
