Rating: 
Summary: Must have DVD
Review: The fact that you are reading this shows your interest in this film. I can tell you now that you should purchase this DVD as soon as you finish reading this. Not only do you get two films on one disc but there is an excellect commentary track as well as a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I find the 1932 version the better of the two. Not only are the special effects better but so are the acting and pacing. For example, early in the 1932 film Dr. Jekyll makes his ideas known in a dramatic speech to a group of university professors. The 1941 film has Dr. Jekyll making his comments over a dinner conversation, it doesn't hold the viewers interest as well as the older film. Also, the makeup of the 1932 film turns Mr. Hyde uglier after each transformation. This helps to emphasize his more horrible behavior as the film goes on. The makeup on the final transformation is so extreme that, according to the commentary, March had to be hospitalized in order to prevent his face from being scarred for life. The older film also makes good use of several scenes with split screens.
The best way to compare the films is to see them for yourself, so do yourself a favor and order it now.
Rating:
Summary: Must have DVD
Review: The fact that you are reading this shows your interest in this film. I can tell you now that you should purchase this DVD as soon as you finish reading this. Not only do you get two films on one disc but there is an excellect commentary track as well as a Bugs Bunny cartoon. I find the 1932 version the better of the two. Not only are the special effects better but so are the acting and pacing. For example, early in the 1932 film Dr. Jekyll makes his ideas known in a dramatic speech to a group of university professors. The 1941 film has Dr. Jekyll making his comments over a dinner conversation, it doesn't hold the viewers interest as well as the older film. Also, the makeup of the 1932 film turns Mr. Hyde uglier after each transformation. This helps to emphasize his more horrible behavior as the film goes on. The makeup on the final transformation is so extreme that, according to the commentary, March had to be hospitalized in order to prevent his face from being scarred for life. The older film also makes good use of several scenes with split screens.
The best way to compare the films is to see them for yourself, so do yourself a favor and order it now.
Rating: 
Summary: What can I say?
Review: The film is cinematically fluent enough, thoroughly professional, and it is obvious to see why the great Frederic March won an Academy Award for this. But I have to admit to being tremendously let down by this film for an infuriating reason: it was unintentionally hilarious. "Jekyll & Hyde" is just one of those stories that I HAVE to take seriously to feel the terror. But how can you be terrified by a villain who is a Jerry Lewis "Nutty Professor" clone? I suspect that Hyde turned out so unwittingly like a grotesque doofus because of the recent success of "Dracula" and "Frankenstein"; so some priggish makeup man, left to his own devices, recreated a corrupt image of his taskmaster tutor. I'm sorry, but I am now convinced that the famous novel has never approached success on the Hollywood screen!
Rating:
Summary: CLASSIC VINTAGE HORROR.....
Review: There's the silent 1920 version with John Barrymore, there's the lamentable 1941 version with Spencer Tracy (and an excellent Ingrid Bergman), and then there's Rouben Mamoulian's classic 1931 version which brought Fredric March an Oscar as Jekyll/Hyde. This, to me, is the best. Not only is March's Hyde a hideous monster but the carnality between Jekyll/Hyde and the Cockney bar wench Champagne Ivy (Miriam Hopkins) is more explicit. This was Pre-Code Hollywood. Rather faithful to Stevenson's story, the film is brilliantly cast and directed. The atmosphere of 1800's London is thick with Victorian attitudes on one end and soaked with sex and sin on the other. It is between these two worlds that Dr. Henry Jekyll finds himself torn after experimenting with mind (and personality) altering drugs that bring out the bestial Mr.Hyde. The transformation scenes are well done for 1931. London's tawdry side of town is where Hyde seeks out the lustful Ivy and takes her forcibly as his mistress. Jekyll had already met her while "slumming" with a friend. Her image stuck with him as her bare garter-clad leg dangled seductively in his mind while her voice purred, "You'll come back, won't you?" But it's Hyde who goes back and dooms the helpless Ivy to a life of hell. In one of the scarier moments, Hyde hisses at the terrified Ivy "I'll show you what horror is!" And proceeds to do so. March deserved the Oscar for his masterful portrayal of the dual personality that is Jekyll/Hyde and Hopkins is perfect as Ivy. Rose Hobart is Jekyll's wealthy fiancee and the rest of the cast is grand. The classic organ score adds the right creepiness and morbid tone for this beautiful b&w melodrama. A welcome addition to DVD and a collector's dream, 1931's "Dr.Jekyll & Mr.Hyde" is a horror classic and not to be missed by afficianados.
Rating:
Summary: Great Package
Review: These two films back to back are awesome.
The Films are very similar structurally, but in terms of delivery, March is more visceral, and Tracey is very polished.
Both films are scarey, and the contrast to the more recent depictions in the League, and Van Helsing is stark, but importantly shows that the myth of this dichotomy serves a purpose defined by its context, and is not limited by people's lack of imagination ... the fact that it serves different purposes in different hands shows the power of myths. In fact, the films, if watched from a cultural context point of view, says more about the 1930s and 1940s milieu .
Rating:
Summary: two very different movies
Review: This double feature gives you two of the best versions of Jekyll and Hyde. Although it's the same story the versions are very different. Frederic March's Dr. Jekyll is a high strung genius. He's impatient with his elders and with his future father in law in particular. Although it was made in the 30s the movie makes it clear in a tasteful way that Dr. Jekyll is going nuts from sexual frustration. When his fiancee goes on vacation with her father our hero spends his days and nights brooding in surly silence. It gets so bad that his butler tells him to go out and blow off some of his steam. Jekyll decides that now would be the perfect time to try that potion he's been working on and bam---out comes Hyde, a violent, mean and ugly creature. He's also going nuts from pent up desires but unlike Jekyll he goes out and does something about it. Miriam Hopkins plays Ivy, the dance hall girl and again although the movie never shows it, it's obvious that Hyde is thouroughly enjoying himself doing things to poor terrified Ivy that Jekyll would never dream of doing with pure, innocent Muriel.
The Frederic March version is a morality play. Jekyll wants to be a rebel but lets Hyde do the dirty work. Eventually Hyde is too strong for him and to save lives and what's left of his soul Jekyll is left with one card to play. It's a brilliant film.
The second movie on this double header is less successful. Spencer Tracy was a great actor but he's miscast here. His Dr. Jekyll is old enough to know better. He seems too sensible to do something as impulsive as coming up with the potion. His Hyde was closer to the book--Robert Louis Stevenson described Hyde as looking normal. He frightened people but not at first glance. The Tracy version is okay and has a few terrific scenes but the March version is the real reason to buy this video.
Rating: 
Summary: March vs. Barrymore
Review: This DVD couples the 1932 pre-code and the 1941 post-code versions of Stevenson's classic and confirms what we knew already: censorship's ruinous effect on the material. The comparison is terribly unfair to Spencer Tracy who was a far better actor than March. He may not have had "99% of transpiration" but he did have the "1% of inspiration" that characterizes the creative artist.
March's real rival for the role of Dr. Jekyll is of course John Barrymore, the star of a hair-raising silent version (1920) and Paramount's first choice for the remake. Barrymore owned a villa, a yacht, a fabulous art-collection, 300 rare birds who picked meal worms from his lips and a smart wife who threatened him with divorce and deprivation of his children. You understand why he refused the role that might have brought him an oscar and accepted Thalberg's "better" offer instead.
The role went to March and this is no coincidence. His breakthrough role in "The Royal Family" was a good-natured parody on Barrymore's public persona, he filmed "Death takes a Holiday", the role that Barrymore was offered (on stage) but was forced to refuse, and he was present at the funeral repast: "A Star is born" (1937). Barrymore's drunken slips, his lamentable press and George Cukor's visit to the detox-center where he was drying out went directly into this film. Barrymore was Selznick's first choice for the role despite his crack-up. But it was too late...
I was thoroughly contented with March's performance - until I saw Barrymore. The gulf between "craftsmanship" and "geniality" has never seemed more unbridgeable. March's performance as Dr. Jekyll is flawless. He makes no mistakes. However: since the filmmakers decided to thematize animal instincts and the unfathomable depths of the human soul - wouldn't a more self-destructive actor have been the better choice? One who would extend himself to the last?
Dr. Jekyll's sexual frustration is explained logically in the '31 version: a delayed wedding. In the '20 version his lecherous father-in-law-to-be taunts him by questioning his manliness. Watch the scene in the music-hall and get a taste of Barrymore's ingenuity: The seductress - not a coquette, but a beguiling, full-blooded beauty - clasps him in her arms and he - blushes. (He could also cry on command). At this moment he re-transforms into a callow youth. A virgin. The ghosts of his past - an insane father, a sexually abusive stepmother - were always with him. His Dr. Jekyll has no sense of self-preservation and is fully capable of experimenting on his own body.
The scenery in the '31 version is an expensive Hollywood set. The '20 version was filmed in New York's secret nooks and backyards - but the result is "Soho" - where Jack the Ripper committed his crimes. Barrymore's famous transformation scene may look like high camp at first sight - until you realize how a simple alteration in his facial expression miraculously transformed this attractive and poetic young man into a degenerate creature, the scum of the earth. He set free the "Mr. Hyde" lurking in himself.
March does not take up the gauntlet: make-up in layers - an excellent special effect - relieves him from this challenge. And since this mask keeps him from acting with his face, Ruben Mamoulian resorts to voice-overing (his direction could not have been more helpful). March's Mr. Hyde is a well thought out Darwinist interpretation: Homo Sapiens vs. the ape-man. But it does not compare to Barrymore who went to the extreme, whose scale ranged from the abysmal to the unearthly. March's performance seems over-emphasized, didactic. As if he were not acting a part but trying to demonstrate how the part should be acted.
Had Tony Awards been distributed earlier Barrymore would have won not two but six! Falder, the miserable clerk in Galsworthy's "Justice"(1916), Peter Ibbetson (1917) and Fedya, the man who lacked the "courage" to kill himself and became a living corpse in Tolstoi's "Redemption" (1918) were standouts. "The Jest" (1919) was a sensation: his Gianetto, a perverse young painter, got an enormous kick out of - being kicked. (Sado-maso on Broadway!). His spidery and seductive Richard III(1920) and his epoch-making "Hamlet" (1922-25) - dangerous, incestuous and imitated to this day - are generally acknowledged to be two of the most significant and innovative events in the history of the modern stage. Theater historians and educated critics - the connoisseurs! - consider him the greatest American stage actor of the 20th century. And this is the man many remember solely as Garbo's lover in "Grand Hotel" (1932) when he was fifty and burned out?
His film-career was ill-fated, oscar-voters never loved him much. But he is in good company: truly genial artists like Barrymore, Chaplin, Welles, Maria Callas, are often flawed and insecure human beings. They make capital mistakes and arouse paroxysms of hatred in small-minded people who don't understand them.
Rating:
Summary: A true horror masterpiece
Review: This film without a doubt is the very best version of the many that have been made of the classic horror story by Robert Louis Stevenson.
Fredric March has the great distinction of being the only actor to win an academy award for best actor for a performanc ein a horror film.
I find this film a real viewing experience, from the superb cast ..Miriam Hopkins yet again proving what a truly wonderful actress she was especially in the scenes when she is literally a prisoner of Hyde's, through to the superb sets and period atmosphere. Although filmed entirely in Hollwood the film reeks with Victorian London atmosphere, from the costumns to the gas lamps, fog etc. I love the film for its look alone but the whole tragic story is brought vividly to life in March's towering potrayal of the dedicated Doctor who interfers in the creation of life. For the time the transformation scenes when he turns into Mr. Hyde are truly remarkable and the look and manner of My Hyde is very scary and quite confronting. March's version is far superior to the Spencer tracey version, fine film that that is as well. March's Hyde has a far more vicious, almost animal quality to it and his physical appearance is much more dramatci as well.
Knowing what a refined actor Fredric March was, his performance as Hyde is incredible and its a very energetic performance as well.
I couldn't fault this fine production, superb in every department. One of the best horror films ever created and with a knockout performance by one of Hollywood's greatest actors Fredric March. Watch this late at night with the curtains pulled shut for extra effect!!
Rating:
Summary: Five Stars for the 1932 Version
Review: This is a two-sided DVD that contains two versions of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic. As many other reviewers here have said, the 1932 Frederick March version is far superior to the 1941 Spencer Tracy version. The older version, directed by a 34-year-old Rouben Mamoulian, is a masterpiece and part of movie history. The later version, directed by Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz director Victor Fleming, seems like an uninspired copy of the earlier one. Frederick March understood the role and seemed to revel in it. But, oddly, while he overacts a bit as Jeykyll, he seems totally believable as the monstrous Hyde. Tracy seemed uncomfortable with both personalities, playing Jekyll as too much of a saint and Hyde as too much of a leering sadist. March conveys the personality of Hyde as joyfully enervated by the full release of Jeykll's baser instincts. His Hyde has fun with his own badness. Tracy's just drowns in it. The special effects in the older version are also superior, and there is lyrical Freudian symbolism in the sets, statues, paintings, etc, that really adds to the drama and continually reminds us of Mamoulian's power as a visual director. The newer version attempts some symbolism (for example, the two whipped horses transform into the two leading ladies) but its symbolism is so heavy handed that it makes the earlier film seem profoundly subtle by comparison. Even the makeup in the older version is superior. In the Tracy version, Mr. Hyde's appearance seems inconsistent from cut to cut within the same scene. And the use of a masked double for Tracy, even in non-stunt scenes in the London fog, is painfully obvious. You don't even need to pause the DVD to see it. The earlier version is so technically dazzling, it's hard to believe it was filmed only a couple of years after the silent Lon Chaney classic, Phantom of the Opera. I've never seen an early 30's film that looked so crisp and sounded so good. And no review of this version should leave out the excellent and sexy performance of Miriam Hopkins. She's convincing as a love-starved hooker and even more convincing as the terrified victim of a depraved client. In many ways, her performance seems less theatrical, and therefore more contemporary, than March's. The Greg Mank commentary on the 1932 version is entertaining and informative, in a gossipy as well as scholarly style. Through his commentary, you find out things about the film and crew that really do add to your insight and enjoyment of the film. There is no commentary on the 1941 version, but Mank does disciss it a little (in too forgiving a way, I think) near the close of the 1932 version. Overall, I think this is a great collector's DVD, and will be one of the most treasured in my collection.
Rating:
Summary: Five Stars for the 1932 Version
Review: This is a two-sided DVD that contains two versions of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic. As many other reviewers here have said, the 1932 Frederick March version is far superior to the 1941 Spencer Tracy version. The older version, directed by a 34-year-old Rouben Mamoulian, is a masterpiece and part of movie history. The later version, directed by Gone With the Wind and Wizard of Oz director Victor Fleming, seems like an uninspired copy of the earlier one. Frederick March understood the role and seemed to revel in it. But, oddly, while he overacts a bit as Jeykyll, he seems totally believable as the monstrous Hyde. Tracy seemed uncomfortable with both personalities, playing Jekyll as too much of a saint and Hyde as too much of a leering sadist. March conveys the personality of Hyde as joyfully enervated by the full release of Jeykll's baser instincts. His Hyde has fun with his own badness. Tracy's just drowns in it. The special effects in the older version are also superior, and there is lyrical Freudian symbolism in the sets, statues, paintings, etc, that really adds to the drama and continually reminds us of Mamoulian's power as a visual director. The newer version attempts some symbolism (for example, the two whipped horses transform into the two leading ladies) but its symbolism is so heavy handed that it makes the earlier film seem profoundly subtle by comparison. Even the makeup in the older version is superior. In the Tracy version, Mr. Hyde's appearance seems inconsistent from cut to cut within the same scene. And the use of a masked double for Tracy, even in non-stunt scenes in the London fog, is painfully obvious. You don't even need to pause the DVD to see it. The earlier version is so technically dazzling, it's hard to believe it was filmed only a couple of years after the silent Lon Chaney classic, Phantom of the Opera. I've never seen an early 30's film that looked so crisp and sounded so good. And no review of this version should leave out the excellent and sexy performance of Miriam Hopkins. She's convincing as a love-starved hooker and even more convincing as the terrified victim of a depraved client. In many ways, her performance seems less theatrical, and therefore more contemporary, than March's. The Greg Mank commentary on the 1932 version is entertaining and informative, in a gossipy as well as scholarly style. Through his commentary, you find out things about the film and crew that really do add to your insight and enjoyment of the film. There is no commentary on the 1941 version, but Mank does disciss it a little (in too forgiving a way, I think) near the close of the 1932 version. Overall, I think this is a great collector's DVD, and will be one of the most treasured in my collection.
|
