Amazon.com: Fredric March won an Oscar® for playing the protagonist (and antagonist) of Robert Louis Stevenson's story. Dr. Henry Jekyll is an honorable man of science, albeit frustrated at the enforced celibacy of a delayed wedding date. Hyde is the fearsome creature he turns into after drinking a potion, and Hyde's appetites (mostly expressed with Miriam Hopkins's Cockney dance-hall wench) are decidedly unrestrained. March's performance is pretty theatrical, but it's fun to watch; his Hyde twitches and squawks and lopes around like an ape in a tuxedo. Rouben Mamoulian's direction has plenty of the brio of early-thirties Hollywood, and the transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are ingenious for the time. This film followed Dracula and Frankenstein into theaters by a few months, and it stands well with those horror classics--and it's a darn sight more fun (and much more down and dirty) than the 1941 MGM version of Stevenson's tale. --Robert Horton
Customer Reviews
Average Rating:
Rating: - Enjoy!
Just as in "Les Miserables", Frederic March really was this young once. The avuncular actor of later films won't be found. Here March portrays the split personality of both a kindly, idealistic London physician and the raging maniac he creates in his lab. Dr. J was filmed in creepy black and white-that lost art. The special effects are truly shivery as the good Jekyll transforms into the evil Hyde before the viewer's very eyes. Director Mamoulian keeps the pace frantic as March morphs from Jekyll to Hyde and back. The female leads are central to the plot. Both Miriam Hopkins and Rose Hobart ... Read More
Rating: - Good for English class
I teach English 1 to high school freshman. After letting three classes view both the 1932 and the 1941 version, the kids overwelmingly agreed the 1932 version was better. They couldn't really see a difference in appearance between Jekyll and Hyde in the 1941 version. And, being able to really see when the doctor was Jekyll and when he was Hyde helped them "get" the story better. The 1941 version also moves a bit more slowly.
There is also a Bugs Bunny short "Hyde and Hare" that my kids really enjoyed. It was a nice 5 minute recap of the story for them. Of course, it was also important to ... Read More
Rating: - Two for one - excellent viewing
This DVD gives a worthwhile opportunity to the viewer to compare the 1932 Paramount version of the famous story with the more controversial 1941 MGM version. Both are excellent in their way. When the later film was made, MGM purchased the earlier version and promptly buried it. It is surprising how close the scripts of the 2 films are for they offer quite different interpretations: in the early version, Hyde's motivation is definitely sexual but in the later version, it is more psychological.
In 1931, Rouben Mamoulian bought his visual flair and mobile camera to the still fledgling ... Read More
Rating: - SPENCER TRACEY AND INGRID B. ACADEMY AWARD PERFORMANCES!!
IVE BEEN A HORROR FAN PERSON FOR AWHILE,WATCHING THE MOVIE EFFECTS FROM NOW AND THEN ,THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY CHANGES,THIS MOVIE WITH SPENCER AND INGRID DISPLAYS WHAT A GOOD WHOLESOME ENJOYABLE MOVIE IS ALL ABOUT.. SPENCER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROUD ABOUT THE PART HIMSELF,BUT HE AND INGRID WERE CONVINCINGLY OUTSTANDING,THE PART WAS EXCELLENT,SUPERB,THE EFFECTS WERE SO NATURALLY,THE ACTING SO MARVELOUS,THERE IS NOTHING LIKE CURLING UP WITH MATERIAL YOU CANT PRY YOURSELF AWAY FROM,AND THESE 2 REALLY SHINE,MOVIES NOW AND THE EFFECTS ARE TOO FAKE-ISH AND OVER A LENGTH OF TIME BECAME CRAP,UNENJOYABLE AND JUST ... Read More
Rating: - dr jekyll and mister hyde
i thought the 1932 version had more depth to the hyde character than the tracy version but would not state that either was not worth viewing. i think getting these 2 fairly hard to find titles at such a great low price,make this disk a must have. and dont forget the bugs bunny as dr jekyll/ hyde bonus!!!
- 
- 