Customer Reviews

Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde [VHS]

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(30)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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!!

I watched Fredric March in "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" last night and I was impressed by the quality of this 1931 movie. From the opening scene that takes us from the perspective through the eyes of the main character and then transfers us via a mirror to the camera's perspective, I knew there was talent behind this production. There were a number of other noteworthy scenes including some fantastic shadow imagery during a chase scene and the impressive on-screen transformation of Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. I looked up the director, Rouben Mamoulian, and discovered that he has some other noteworthy films to his credit. They include "Laura", "Blood and Sand", and "The Mark of Zorro" but I confess, I hadn't heard of him before. In addition to Mamoulian, a lot of credit goes to the Academy Award-winning preformance of Fredric March. He does well playing the dual roles and giving each one its' own seperate characterization.

Frankly, I got more out of this version of "Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" than any other version I'd seen. I confess that I never read the book but I think I got the purpose of Robert Louis Steveson's novel. Dr. Jekyll is focussed on the idealistic theory that, if we could but chemically seperate the good nature of man from his evil one, the society that would emerge would truly be heaven on Earth. What we discover, along with Dr. Jekyll, is that man speaks of the greatness within but succumbs to the earthly obsessions. The scene in which Jekyll is tempted by a loose woman (played quite ably by Miriam Hopkins) is quite provacative for 1931. In being that provacative, Mamoulian captures our essence as well as Jekyll's and we spend the rest of the movie torn between sympathizing with and rebelling against the good Dr.'s negative transformations.

What kept this movie, for me, a notch below greatness, was the physical makeup of Mr. Hyde. He was certainly hideous in appearance but his hair looked like some sort of bad joke. If it was meant to convey the image of an ape, it succeeded. However, the director had already reached us on a more personal level so I felt that the ape-like crown of Hyde's was contradictory to the message; we have our ugly side but it is still human in nature. Perhaps a minor point but it distracted me every time Hyde emerged.

This movie was truly ahead of its' time. It didn't scare me but it did make me think about a number of things.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of my favorite stories, and this DVD contains two excellent film versions-- three, if one counts the Bugs Bunny Jekyll-Hyde animated short, which is definitely a bonus! The Audio Commentary is also an excellent feature, as it delivers a lot of fascinating information regarding both versions featured on this DVD as well as the John Barrymore version from the 1920's. Now for the main features:

The 1930's version with Fredric March is highly entertaining, and although it certainly fits the mold of a "creature feature," it carries with it an intelligence that distinguishes it from a typical monster flick. Fredric March himself is excellent in the dual role of the saint-like (and eventually tortured) Dr. Jekyll and the initially humorous, but ultimately horrifically sadistic Mr. Hyde. The ape-like Hyde make-up in this film is excellent, especially for its time, but the transformation sequence is even more impressive, as it is done fairly realistically. Also, the film sticks to the basic storyline, and the use of the fiance/dancer dichotomy adds an interesting twist to the "strange case." This is a must-see for all fans of horror movies, especially those who enjoy classic horror films.

The 1940's version of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde with Spencer Tracy is also a highly entertaining and excellent film. There are those who do not consider this a horror film-- I would have to disagree with them completely. Although this film is a rather lush production of the Jekyll/Hyde story, Spencer Tracy's Hyde ends up being rather horrific in his character, all because of an effective portrayal by a more-than-capable actor. He (Tracy) manages to add a more humorous touch to both personalities (Jekyll and Hyde), and his Jekyll seems genuinely exhausted from the numerous misdeeds of his alter ego. As for the Hyde make-up, it is considerably more human-looking than the Fredric March version, but this does not make it any less effective. In keeping with the tradition of the 1930's version, Tracy's Hyde begins as a somewhat more brutish-looking man who bears relatively little resemblance to the actor, but gets increasingly hideous as the film progresses; as his deeds get worse and worse, this Mr. Hyde becomes exactly what he's meant to be: a monster, both in character and appearance. True, Mr. Hyde may not be a typical role for actor Spencer Tracy, but his excellent performance shows that he is far from miscast. Also, this version follows the basic story format as well, which qualifies it as a good adaptation of the original story.

This DVD is an excellent buy, and any purchaser will definitely get more bang for his or her buck!

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.

This video combo features a Classic, and a Classic that is a remake of the Classic. That having been said, if you can keep your perspective balanced by what it took to make these films that long ago, what you have here are both masterpieces in their own right. If you're too young to know who Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman, or Lana Turner are, then you're not going to care about Frederic March, Miriam Hopkins, or Rose Hobart, either. I saw both of these when I was knee-high to a grass hopper, and will never tire of viewing either version. I recommend this to anybody who likes films from yesteryear, and to anybody who wants to see what the "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" story is all about. Robert Louis Stevenson published this story in a book back in 1885, and it has been popular ever since, as a great portrayal of human nature. There are of course, many, many versions of this story out on film, but it is my own humble opinion that these versions are the top two, and will stand the tests of time. Try to figure out between these two which version is your favorite. I'm still deciding.

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...

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.

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!