Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1931)

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Fredric March won an Oscar® for playing the protagonist (and antagonist) of Robert Louis Stevenson's story. Dr. Henry Jekyll is an honorable man of science, albeit frustrated at the enforced celibacy of a delayed wedding date. Hyde is the fearsome creature he turns into after drinking a potion, and Hyde's appetites (mostly expressed with Miriam Hopkins's Cockney dance-hall wench) are decidedly unrestrained. March's performance is pretty theatrical, but it's fun to watch; his Hyde twitches and squawks and lopes around like an ape in a tuxedo. Rouben Mamoulian's direction has plenty of the brio of early-thirties Hollywood, and the transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are ingenious for the time. This film followed Dracula and Frankenstein into theaters by a few months, and it stands well with those horror classics--and it's a darn sight more fun (and much more down and dirty) than the 1941 MGM version of Stevenson's tale. --Robert Horton

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
Classy MGM was not the studio most likely to make a horror movie in 1941, and in fact its production of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ended up looking more like a glossy costume drama than a B-movie frightfest. The mood of Robert Louis Stevenson's tale of a divided doctor is ably captured in Joseph Ruttenberg's Oscar-nominated cinematography--more so, perhaps, than in Spencer Tracy's lead performance. Tracy wasn't especially happy about playing the role, although his transformations from good Dr. Jekyll to evil Dr. Hyde are convincing enough. One of the main reasons to see this version of the story is the young, impossibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, then still a year shy of Casablanca. Bergman was cast in the good-girl part, but proved a shrewd judge of material, even this early in her Hollywood career; she finagled her way into playing the floozy instead, thus securing a more colorful acting platform than Lana Turner, who ended up in the more respectable role. Director Victor Fleming's previous movie was a little number called Gone with the Wind, and the Big Picture approach to that project may have influenced his work here--this Dr. Jekyll is just a bit too stately, too polished to really engage. The picture is so dignified it never cuts loose with the kind of wild invention that marked the 1932 version of the story, which won Fredric March an Oscar. It's the tale as imagined by Jekyll, rather than Hyde. --Robert Horton Amazon.com

Good for English class

I teach English 1 to high school freshman. After letting three classes view both the 1932 and the 1941 version, the kids overwelmingly agreed the 1932 version was better. They couldn't really see a difference in appearance between Jekyll and Hyde in the 1941 version. And, being able to really see when the doctor was Jekyll and when he was Hyde helped them "get" the story better. The 1941 version also moves a bit more slowly.
There is also a Bugs Bunny short "Hyde and Hare" that my kids really enjoyed. It was a nice 5 minute recap of the story for them. Of course, it was also important to point out that though both movies had an Ivy character, the book did not... March 13, 2008

Two for one - excellent viewing

This DVD gives a worthwhile opportunity to the viewer to compare the 1932 Paramount version of the famous story with the more controversial 1941 MGM version. Both are excellent in their way. When the later film was made, MGM purchased the earlier version and promptly buried it. It is surprising how close the scripts of the 2 films are for they offer quite different interpretations: in the early version, Hyde's motivation is definitely sexual but in the later version, it is more psychological.

In 1931, Rouben Mamoulian bought his visual flair and mobile camera to the still fledgling talkies and created a dynamic and generally exciting interpretation. Fredric March starred in an Academy Award winning performance. Mamoulian's vision was Hyde as a Neanderthal man, a prehistoric beast with basic desires. The makeup, which contributes enormously to the violence of March's performance, makes him unrecognisable so he really does play 2 distinct roles. As Jekyl, March is a bit wet and hammy but as Hyde, he lets loose and is memorable. His motivation is definitely sexual as Jekyl is frustrated in celibacy by waiting 8 months for his marriage to occur. Miriam Hopkins plays the guttersnipe on whom Hyde unleashes his rage and she is superb, a revelation to those who know her for her artificial overacting in so many other films. You really feel her terror. Jekyl's fiancee is played by the believable but dull Rose Hobart.

The 1941 version is a plush MGM product with Spencer Tracy in the lead. Tracy was uncomfortable with the role and his interpretation is more subtle than March and probably not as effective. His motivation is much more psychological, with more restrained makeup which makes Jekyl and Hyde more believeable as 2 sides of the one person. This in fact may be closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's original concept. Ingrid Bergman plays the Hopkin's part but she is miscast as a Cockney. Her class shines through and while she is touching and luminous, she is never really believable. Lana Turner plays Jekyl's fiancee. She is baby faced with a pout and a giggle, great looking but completely unconvincing as the object of affection of the mature Tracy.

The 1931 version ran into major censorship issues both when it was in production and on its re-release and up to 14 minutes have been restored from the best available sources. The print is variable, sometimes crystal clear and other times grainy and dirty but at least the film is complete. Best of all, a first rate commentary has been included which really analyses the film with many direct quotes from the director. This is one of the best commentaries I have heard on a DVD and it covers, if briefly, the 1941 version as well as reference to John Barrymore's version from 1920. The 1941 print is almost perfect. Theatrical trailers for both films are also included.

The final bonus is the inclusion of a funny Bugs Bunny cartoon lampooning the famous story - Bugs at his best. November 4, 2007

SPENCER TRACEY AND INGRID B. ACADEMY AWARD PERFORMANCES!!

IVE BEEN A HORROR FAN PERSON FOR AWHILE,WATCHING THE MOVIE EFFECTS FROM NOW AND THEN ,THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY CHANGES,THIS MOVIE WITH SPENCER AND INGRID DISPLAYS WHAT A GOOD WHOLESOME ENJOYABLE MOVIE IS ALL ABOUT.. SPENCER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROUD ABOUT THE PART HIMSELF,BUT HE AND INGRID WERE CONVINCINGLY OUTSTANDING,THE PART WAS EXCELLENT,SUPERB,THE EFFECTS WERE SO NATURALLY,THE ACTING SO MARVELOUS,THERE IS NOTHING LIKE CURLING UP WITH MATERIAL YOU CANT PRY YOURSELF AWAY FROM,AND THESE 2 REALLY SHINE,MOVIES NOW AND THE EFFECTS ARE TOO FAKE-ISH AND OVER A LENGTH OF TIME BECAME CRAP,UNENJOYABLE AND JUST ALTOGETHER BORING,LIKE ADDING KETCHUP TO FRIES!!. I DONT KNOW WHY SPENCER,AS IT WAS SAID,WASNT TOO PROUD OF THE ROLE,IT IS ONE OF THE BEST AND BETTER ROLES PLAYED!! LIKE NO ONE CAN PLAY WOLF MAN AS THE OLD CLASSIC GYPSIE WARNS BELA LAGOSIE ABOUT THE MYTH OF ONCE BEING BITTEN BY A WEREWOLF,AHH THE GOOD OL DAYS,THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN,FRANK LANGELLA AS DRACULA,NOW THESE ACTORS KNEW HOW TO SHINE!!! October 5, 2007

dr jekyll and mister hyde

i thought the 1932 version had more depth to the hyde character than the tracy version but would not state that either was not worth viewing. i think getting these 2 fairly hard to find titles at such a great low price,make this disk a must have. and dont forget the bugs bunny as dr jekyll/ hyde bonus!!! August 17, 2007

The two Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde versions

Both 1932 and 1941 versions of this oft-told classic make for worthwhile viewing, with my own preference the earlier pre-Code entry starring Fredric March. It's the more frightening of the two, with stark, expressionist sets and ghoulish Hyde make-up accentuating Jekyll's turn from good to evil. The second entry has a gorgeous MGM gloss, and assured direction by Victor Fleming. It also has Spencer Tracy, a fabulous actor whose Hyde is a subtler rendition, a man with a heavier brow and leering expression, whose change seems more behavioral than physical. The second version also boasts the luminous Ingrid Bergman, playing against type as a streetwalker. See both entries, and make up your own mind. You won't go far wrong either way. June 20, 2007

More reviews at Amazon.com ...