- 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.
The TCM overview of this film on the schedule, as many others in the recent past, continues to omit the names of the principle stars.While the importance of the supporting cast is not in question, I hardly think they merit "top billing"Why is TCM suddenly denigrating Hollywoods kingmakers?
Good Version, But Not the Best
I much prefer the Fredric March version. Brilliant cinematography, better makeup, a performance by March that can only be described as leaping, and much more tension and fright than the relatively staid performance by the fine cast in this one. I have both and enjoy each from time to time, but much prefer March over Tracy.
No review ... Just trivia
I read quite some time ago that Mr. Tracy became somewhat disillusioned with this film and his performance after author , W. Somerset Maugham , paid a visit to the set . According to the story , Maugham's companion and guide , ( a low level MGM executive or P.R. man , perhaps ? ) , turned to the writer and remarked , " You're very lucky today , Mr. Maugham . You have the opportunity to see Spencer Tracy at work in his latest picture , " Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde " " . Maugham silently watched Tracy for a minute or two , then turned to his companion and asked , " Which is he now ? Jekyll or Hyde ? "
ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO BE ROBERT DONAT?
Remakes are always tricky and this version is the first one I ever saw on television-the March version I caught at a revival house in lower Manhattan So, technically the 1941 version is my " first " version and favorite one. The March version does have the cleverer transformation sequence-although Jack Dawn's make-up is very good (which turns up on Nelson Eddy in THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER...) The earlier version was shorter-and made even shorter by the cuts insisted on by the Hayes Code. The 1941 version is longer and drags a bit here and there but Tracy, Bergman, and Turner get into the spirit of the story and are ably supported by a great cast. The sexual symbolism of flowers in water, exploding champagne corks and flogged horses must have slipped past the censor-that was at the start, too bad more of that could not have been put in towards the end. Tracy was accused of hamming it up too much-how else do you play Mr Hyde? Hyde is a bad-ass show off. Some of the ham crept into March's performance as well I think Tracy did a damn good job like a dark flip side to his good inventor interpretation of Edison the year before. According to one of Robert Donat's bios, MGM had the dual roles lined up for him. I would like to have seen Donat tackle this classic role. The shy but earnest doctor would have been no problem, but the evil side ... I would have really like to have seen him tackle the role(s) Certainly MGM's production gloss made their backlot London a lot grander than Paramount's which can be seen as a detriment. One last thing, Franz Waxman's score deserves high praise for aking in the choral of the Lord's Prayer, Ivy's theme of 'See Me Dance The Polka', musical backgrounds for the transformations, and finally Hyde's desperate flight-up there with his other fantastic film music scores!
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
- Mr. Blandings
A by the book, shot-for-shot remake of the more famous film starring Fredric March. I wasn't particularly fond of the earlier film, as I thought Hyde was more goofy looking than imposing. Tracy's version puts emphasis on drama over grotesque make-up, so in that regard I think it is the superior version by a little bit. Still, this movie could have been much better, and far more scary. As it is, it's more a dreary tragedy, and it gets a little dull near the end when things should have been getting more suspenseful. Maybe that's just the story, though; it reads like a simple procedural of expected events. Plus, Tracy was holding back, I feel. Certainly the movie wasn't nearly as daring as it's pre-code predecessor, though slightly more believable. Bergman's performance is good but her exotic accent, mixed with attempts at gutter-speak, pulls you out of her performance from time to time. It's too bad she never mastered changing accents. Turner does a better job with her character than I would have expected. **
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
- Dashiell Barnes
Less-than scary version of the Robert Louis Stevenson literary classic. Tracy gives one of the dullest, least-compelling version of the title characters, Bergman & Turner are great in one of their early performances. Excellent, Oscar-nominated photography & score liven up the small-scale chills found in the famous novel, but it's scary moments are weak. Fine film nonetheless that's great come Halloween. I give it a 3.5/5.
Este filme um dos melhores do gnero que mistura terror e um pouco de suspense. A ingrid Bergam e o Spenceer Tracy esto timos juntos. Um filme de arrepiar.
- Alethea Thomas
Outstanding performances by Lana and Ingrid...but Spencer Tracy, acting two roles with convincing individualisms was just SUPERB!! Anyone can do two or more characters, but not all can do them well. I consider this movie as one of the best, in my lifetime, and Spencer's top-notch performance.
Available On DVD
Along w/ the Frederic March vesrion.
Spencer and the Spinster
- Henry Pennymon
Just imagine, a young Lana Turner and a young Ingrid Bergman in the same movie. That might make the strongest of men become unravelled. Definitely one of the best ever made!
Tracy & Bergman...
- Bob Galvin-Oliphant
Spencer Tracy is excellent in this Victor Fleming version of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic tale. The very lovely Ingrid Bergman shines also, playing the barmaid Ivy.