skip navigation
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde(1932)

Remind Me

TCMDb Archive MaterialsView all archives (0)


user reviews

See Detailed Ratings
    Acting of Lead Performers
    Acting of Supporting Cast
    Music Score
    Title Sequence
  • No Ratings Available Add Yours Now
    Historical Importance
    Would You Recommend?
  • 0 Member Ratings

Add your ratings! Each of the detailed ratings you select will result in a cumulative score for this film.

You can also write a review by clicking here. Your review will then be posted for everyone to read.

Thank You!

We have received your ratings and calculated them into the overall user ratings for this title.

You can also write a review by clicking here. Your review will then be posted for everyone to read.

    Rate the acting of the Lead Performers
    Rate the acting of the Supporting Cast
    Rate the Director
    Rating of the Music Score
    Rating of the Title Sequence
    Creatively uses the camera to tell the story
    Importance in Cinema history
    Would you recommend for fans of this genre
Submit Ratings Cancel Write a Review Read Reviews

*By submitting your contribution, you agree to TCM's Terms of Use. TCM will use your personal information consistent with our Privacy Policy


The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.

  • Evil

    • Catheryne
    • 3/12/18

    The Masterpiece of evil personified, seen not only in words, but the person of Frederick March...the evil in his face and body becomes more detailed and dangerous with each transformation. Superb acting by all....the entire production well worth watching.

  • cemented legacy

    • a.morris
    • 2/22/18

    one of the first bricks in the foundation that made the horror genre.

  • Scary heart wrenching classic

    • TK
    • 11/13/17

    What is the central theme of Stevenson's classic? Abuse of women? Drug abuse? Keeping secrets even from our closest loved ones? Take your pick. I think it can be different things to different people depending on their frame of mind. It might even change with the times as society more openly confronts things it didn't before. But I think what remains constant throughout is the total despair of losing control with no solution in sight. When Jekyll realizes his predicament he says his farewell to Muriel, and the way Fredric March portrays that scene tears your heart out. I like it a bit better than Spencer Tracy's version for that reason but I think both are very good.

  • Scary and relevant to today's news.

    • Lucy
    • 11/7/17

    Ugh. Watching this monster menace Miriam Hopkins, I am reminded of how people must have felt with Harvey Weinstein. A despicable wretch who enjoys his power as he cowers over others.

  • The BEST version

    • pamster
    • 10/18/16

    You would think Spencer Tracy won the academy award as often as they play his version, as opposed to THIS version w/Fredric March which is superior as he contrasts the good doctor's alter ego so sadistically it is chilling.


    • Will
    • 10/17/16

    At first I thought Hyde, came off looking too ape like, as others have pointed out. Then, after watching a couple of times, I began to see and hear other things. Scenes and images that creep into your mind. Like when the old landlady is leaving the room, after telling, what she really thinks of Hyde, not fully aware he has entered the room. As she is leaving, Hyde stands silently in the centre of the scene, glaring , his eyes, the cape and hat. In fact his whole dark evil manner. No words necessary. Brilliant acting . Sends a cold chill up my back, like when was a child and I had to put up with an adult I feared and disliked staring down at me. Other scenes started to take on a different image for me and I began to see how great this film is.

  • 4 Stars

    • Anne
    • 2/13/16

    Again, I implore viewers to ignore the stars. March and Hopkins are superb, the transformation special effects are very advanced for 1931. (The director divulged the secret later on in an interview.) And the terror is real. Well done.

  • Hopkins excels!

    • RedRain
    • 2/12/16

    I've never been a Miriam Hopkins fan, as she almost always played roles of a bitter, ugly woman you couldn't have a shred of sympathy for; however, in this film, she is just nothing short of superb. Her horror and dread is palpable and she is expertly cast as the recipient of Hyde's cruelty. Unlike the later film adaptations of the Jekyll/Hyde story, this one is very adult and should not be seen by children. It is, however, an excellent film, particularly for its day and it has held up through the decades. I do highly recommend it.

  • "I'll show you what horror means..."

    • filmfan
    • 9/12/14

    A deeply dark and disturbing movie. I doubt that it could include some of the insinuations if made today. A great horror movie.

  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

    • I_Fortuna
    • 2/28/14

    Great film!

  • Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

    • Dashiell B.
    • 2/21/13

    A good, but showy version of Stevensons classic horror story. March won the Best Actor Oscar (Tied with Wallace Beery for "The Champ), Hopkins is superb as Hyde's tortured mistress. Suprisingly amazing cinematography makes the dark world on the screen pop, the makeup makes March look like a canine-neanderthal hybrid instead of anything remotely human. Fine film come Halloween. I give it a 3.5/5.

  • A Forgotten Masterpiece

    • Greg Gans
    • 2/18/13

    While Universal was producing film after film of gothic and monster films that became iconic. This studio made but a few that have been passed obver. But don't pass this film by because both the direction by Rouben Mamoullian ,unflinching sreeenplay and the performance of Frederic March make this a terrifying movie. It is not just the special effects but the entire pacing, performances that make this excel. He gets scarrier and scarrrier and Jekyll more helpless as his sins affect others.

  • Wonderful Film

    • Fredric the Great
    • 6/6/12

    My favorite version of the classic tale


    • Michael Steven
    • 6/5/12

    For MANY years,this was the ONLY fright/horror film,to recieve an Academy Award.Fredric March,who in my opinion was one of this country's most overlooked actors,won an Oscar for Best Actor in this film.It should be noted that John Barrymore WAS approached by Paramount in 1931/32,to reprise his performance of the 1919/20 version.Reason he turned down the role was quite simple,MONEY.He was now at MGM,making a series of NOW classic performances for a much higher rate of pay.Based on that,WHY GO TO PARAMOUNT? I finally saw this version on VHS,in the mid-80's.It was well worth the wait.The way Director Rouben Mamoulian,made this film,left one to believe that he was trying too hard to making this production a winner.Too many overlaping shots,O.K.....but DON'T OVERDO IT.Each time we see Jekyll transform into Hyde,Hyde's appearance gets worse,& worse.In the book,Mr.Hyde really isn't much to look at.He's actually a VERY plain looking little man.Not worthy of much discussion.For me,when Hyde finally appears in the film,& terrorises Miriam Hopkins,that's almost the highlight of the film.GREAT PERFORMANCES FROM MARCH,HOPKINS,HOBART,ETC. It wasn't until Alexander Golitzen won an Oscar for Universal's 1943 version of "PHANTOM OF THE OPERA",that fright films were indeed being taken seriously,& NOT being laughed at.Since then,MANY other types of sci-fi/horror films have WON Oscars.It took this film to start the process.Fredric March gave a VERY good performance in this film."The Adventures of Mark Twain",as far as I'm concerned,was MUCH better.If you're looking for something to get you a LITTLE uncomfortable,YOU'VE COME TO THE RIGHT PLACE!

  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)

    • Mr. Blandings
    • 9/19/11

    No question that the camera tricks used in the transformation sequences are cleverly convincing. And no question that March is definitely into his role. Still, I couldn't help but find the way Hyde acted and looked was, well, a little goofy. It almost seemed as if he were Martin Short in some Second City skit. Hyde should have come across as more imposing and more menacing, instead of like an oversexed little monkey. So that part was disappointing. Miriam Hopkins is good in her role but her scenes are far too brief.

    • 6/25/11

  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)

    • Mark Sutch
    • 4/9/11


  • The

    • Paul C.
    • 9/17/09

    Miriam Hopkins - she WAS young once and so was Fredric March and so were we all!Darn the "Hays Code"!Excellent direction and special effects and a terrific musical score.

  • Brilliant!

    • Steve S.
    • 8/25/09

    A truly dynamic and moving performance by March in his duel portrayal of Jekyll & Hyde.Miriam Hopkins is surely sexy but mostly sympathetic as the doomed "Champagne" Ivy.A tremendous effort by all who were involved in the making of this film.

  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

    • Robert Brunet
    • 4/25/09

    much better than the the later, Spencer tracy version

  • Another Childhood Favorite

    • Rick
    • 3/23/09

    One of the greatest Horrific performances along with Nicholson in The Shining, Lugosi in Dracula, the Shark in Jaws

  • an oscar well earned

    • david mclaughlin
    • 2/12/09

    considering the extensive but effective mak-up applications he had to endure, March remains the quintessential Mr. Hyde. His previous stage experience gives his Jekyll believability as well as pathos. Dated by todays standards though it may be, it remains a must-see masterpiece of early film...of any genre.

  • A Very Ominous Horror Picture

    • Jeffrey Kenison
    • 2/2/09

    To be honest I'm okay with Fredric March's phases as Jekyll. However, the Hyde phases are a different story entirely. You know, all that Hyde make-up surrounding March's piercing eyes: the wig, the bushy eyebrows, false tusk-like-teeth, the hook-like snout; it all looked a little ghastly to me. So much so, that I use a pillow to find a happy place during the Hyde scenes.

  • Wow

    • Marilyn
    • 7/27/08

    no comments????!!!! Well, if you'd never seen this version, you are definitely missing out on a masterpiece of early cinema. Not to mention the great acting done by the marvelous Frederic March. The way they showed the change from Jekyll to Hyde is surprisingly well-done for such an early time. It's worth watching just to see that. Who needs computer graphics?

  • Your Name
  • Your Email (optional)
  • Your Location (optional)
      Rate the acting of the Lead Performers
      Rate the acting of the Supporting Cast
      Rate the Director
      Rating of the Music Score
      Rating of the Title Sequence
      Creatively uses the camera to tell the story
      Importance in Cinema history
      Would you recommend for fans of this genre

  • Title of your Review
  • Your Review

    Character Limit! You have reached the 2,000 word character limit for this review.

  • Preview & Submit Cancel Submit Review Go Back
Thank You!

We have received your ratings and calculated them into the overall user ratings for this title.

Click the button below to read reviews and see your posting:

Close Detailed Ratings (optional)

*We protect your personal infortmation and will not provide it to anyone without your consent. For a complete explanation, please refer to TCM's Privacy Policy. By submitting your contribution, you agree to TCM's Terms of Use.