- Acting of Lead Performers
- Acting of Supporting Cast
- Music Score
- Title Sequence
- Historical Importance
- Would You Recommend?
0 Member Ratings
NO REVIEWS AVAILABLE
The title has not been reviewed. Be the first to write a review by clicking here to start.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
- Dashiell B.
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
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.
- Fredric the Great
My favorite version of the classic tale
MARCH WON AN OSCAR FOR THIS ONE....
- Michael Steven
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
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.
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)
- Mark Sutch
- Paul C.
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.
- Steve S.
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
much better than the the later, Spencer tracy version
Another Childhood Favorite
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
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
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.
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?