Rating: 
Summary: The Best Version!
Review: This is arguably the best version of Jekyll & Hyde there is and ever will be! I liked the 1920 version with John Barrymore (I didn't care much for Spencer Tracy's 1941 portrayal), but Fredric March definitely takes the cake here, turning in a brilliantly over-the-top performance in the dual characters; especially as Mr. Hyde, where he is ruthless and menacing in sharp contrast to the comedic roles he was known for. It's hard to believe that March played BOTH characters; you have to look very closely, because otherwise you'll think it were two different actors; but as the main review said, March's performance is so good in this film, he more than deserved the Oscar he won for it in 1932! On a rather humorous note, there's something I noticed in the film completely by accident: check out some of the facial shots of March in his Mr. Hyde makeup...the expressions he makes (especially when he cracks a smile through the bad teeth) make him look like Austin Powers! Did Mike Myers get the inspiration for Powers by watching this movie? It's possible...you be the judge!
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT!
Review: This movie is absulutely a masterpiece. A great horror movie. Frederic March gives a stunning performance, I must say. When I first saw the Hyde character, I had to wonder if that was Frederic March behind all that make up. It's not that faithful to the R.L. Stevenson novel, but it still is a great story. It focuses quite a bit on the love/lust angle, but doesn't turn into a romance. This is a great movie all around, good acting, story, cinematography, (the first transformation from Jekyll to Hyde where the camera spins was a really big innovation becase the camera made alot of sound, so they put it in a soundproof thingy and it couldn't be moved.) and very imaginative; those few parts when you see the world through Jekyll's eyes is cool. Miriam Hopkins' portrayel of Ivy is great, she is really believable. One more thing. At the party scene, where Rose Something (forgot her last name) is wearing that dress, if you look behind them when they're going out in the garden, there's a woman wearing an identical dress. This is a great movie that is really great. I liked it and recommend it to anyone, no matter what genre you prefer. At times, March's performance almost moved me to tears. Excellent!
Rating: 
Summary: Age Withers Classic
Review: This review is of the l933 Rouben Mamoulian version with Frederick March. I was horrified to see that this DVD transfer is so botched. It's filled with scratches, grain and the version I taped ten years ago from PBS is far superior. While this version is still fascinating to watch, you begin to ask questions. Why did the director plaster March with so much make-up BEFORE the transformation? He wears weird black lipstick and eyeshadow in his normal stages. When he does transfer, he becomes so ape like you have to wonder why everyone didn't run for the hills when they saw him coming? Which is why I found it hard to believe Ivy would spend one second with him--much less becoming his mistress. Still, this is the best version of them all and one hopes that one day a restored, cleaned up version will be available on DVD.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best in classic horror!
Review: To say this is among the best classic horror films, isn't really doing this film much justice, it is a masterpiece! Frederic March is fantastic as he won an Oscar for best actor, the first time a monster has won an Oscar! The story itself has been filmed a dozen times but never as great as this. In the film an english doctor invents a chemical that unleashes the evil side of himself(or the animal), in this case Edward Hyde. The change doesn't have much control over Jekyll but when Hyde becomes too powerful he takes on a life of his own. The movie is just so great, it never really gets boring, Hydes attitude still amuses me such as the scene when he is in the bar. The closeup of Ivy's legs must have been considered soft pornography back then to have been cut out, some might find it a turn on, some might find it a useless form to get more people to buy the film, it's more like a form of art in the film, as Dr.Jekyll gets flashbacks of her legs later in the film, it really taps into his head. This is a film I think any fan of classic horror has to watch and get, if you haven't seen this film, you don't know what your missing.
Rating:
Summary: The Best version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"
Review: What makes this version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde so compelling is Fredric March's "Jekyll" and not necessarily his "Hyde". This film was made in 1931, before the production code was in full enforcement and sexual frustration is at the core of March's "Dr. Jekyll." Thankfully, this video version has restored footage that was edited out of the movie for years! We now can delight in seeing Miriam Hopkins' gartered leg and Fredric March's tortured confession to Rose Hobart. Director Rouben Mamoulian used many daring techniques including a subjective camera and extreme close-ups. Mamoulian's concept of the "Dr. Hyde" character was that he was a primitive, neanderthal man and the initial scenes of "Hyde" are intentionally comic in flavor. Mamoulian wanted to warm the audiences up to the character before unleashing the horror.
Rating:
Summary: The 1932 Version Is A Pre-Code Delight
Review: Wow. I was expecting something a little tamer, along the lines of the classic Universal horror shows that were being made in the early 1930's. But even James Whale was never able to make a picture with the kind of still-palpable subversive punch that Rouben Mamoulian's hysterical, sexual 1932 filming of the famous "Jekyll and Hyde" novella does. Fredric March towers here in both roles, and the entire production drips with the furious invention of early, pre-Code cinema. This DVD version reinstates much (then) shocking stuff, including partial nudity and some violence. But no amount of cutting could remove the psychosexual writhings that power this brilliant, brilliant horror movie. There's a great commentary included, which should be listened to. And, as a bonus, Warner has included the lesser 1941 Spencer Tracy version (where most of the dirty stuff has been pushed way below the surface.) Its worth viewing too, especially in the way in starkly contrasts Code days to the pre-Code ones.
|
