Search - Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde Double Feature (1932/1941) on DVD

Damian M. (ratchet)
Reviewed on 3/11/2009...

[1932] My favorite of the film adaptations. The basics of the story are known to all, so I will not go into that. Fredric March is amazing in his portrayals of both characters and his transformations between the two are almost unbelievable. Made prior to the Hays Production Code, this was more risqué (the prostitute shows some nice side-boob and is obviously completely naked whilst trying to get the good doctor to bed her) than anything Hollywood had to offer for the next 35+ years. Like the 1920 version, the story follows the early play adaptation.
[1941] Because of the Hays Code many movies made prior to its enforcement were no longer able to be shown. This bred a plethora of re-makes. Like re-makes to this day, they rarely capture what made the original great. This one is 'glossy,' typical of most MGM productions from this era. This takes away from the film in some respects as the grittiness of the earlier films aided the viewer in getting into Jekyll/Hyde's mind. Though much tamer in many senses than either of the preceding Jekyll adaptations (no super-slut prostitute like the 1931 version), it did feature an inexplicably 'rough' scene with a Hyde fantasy sequence. It shows him whipping both his fiancée and a prostitute while in the throes of passion. If you are going to see one Jekyll movie, stick with the 1931 version.

5 of 5 member(s) found this review helpful.

Five Stars for the 1932 Version

Louis Barbarelli | San Francisco, CA USA | 02/08/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"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."

CLASSIC VINTAGE HORROR.....

Mark Norvell | HOUSTON | 11/10/2003

(5 out of 5 stars)

"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."

A true horror masterpiece

Simon Davis | 04/18/2002

(5 out of 5 stars)

"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!!"