SnoopyStyle
In Victorian London, Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) investigates the duality of human being. He develops a drug and creates an alternate violent personality Edward Hyde inside himself.This is generally good as far old classic horror. The standout is the transformation of Jekyll into Hyde, and Fredric March's visceral performance as the unhinged Hyde. That grotesque face is a horror icon. The story does drag a little at times and meanders in its melodrama. It is heightened every time Hyde is on the screen. The movie is truly Jekyll and Hyde.
ildimo-35223
Less a horror film than a morality fable (you can choose evil but then you cannot choose good again), this entry of Stevenson's story is sublime. Supremely endowed by Mamoulian's directorial prowess and effective proclivity to innovation, the film towers above its own dated restrictions freeing itself to an aesthetic highland where even pose and verbose dialogue cannot hinder its virtues.March is neurotically fierce as Jekyll and grotesquely fearsome as the Neanderthalian Hyde, Hopkins does her usual superlative work and, above all, Mamoulian brings it home thundering his well-honed, yet experimental, mastery (pov narration, split screen imagery, pioneering use of sound, camera movement, editing pace, visual effects, you name it..).
A master('s)work.
JLRVancouver
The only 'horror' film to take home a 'Best Actor' Oscar (for Fredric March's titular duel role), "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is one of the classic horror films to come out of the 1930's (a banner decade for the genre). March is outstanding as the sneering, hyperkinetic Hyde, managing to 'act around' the huge prosthetic semi-simian teeth he sports as the dark side of good Dr. Jekyll (who is, of course, a substantially less interesting (or entertaining) character). The movie is pre-code, so the sexual side of Jekyll's inner demon is not downplayed and Hyde's abuse of dance-hall girl Ivy Pearson (Miriam Hopkins) is quite rough. The famous transformation scenes still look great (admittedly they can't compare with modern prosthetics or CGI) and the moody, symbolic cinematography is excellent. Overall, the movie is one of the great classic horror films and is not to be missed by fans of the genre or anyone looking for a good movie to watch at midnight.
Irishchatter
This is the best 1931 version I have ever seen. The storyline was so well, the camera work was brilliant, you honestly felt like you were the character looking at other characters. Although you do kinds get creeper out by Hyde. I was astonished that rape was involved so early in an old time movie like this. I can understand it's horror but it just was so unexpected and frightening! I really applaud Fredric March for playing two characters throughout the whole movie. It was quite shocking that he was hospitalized after involving in this film. The reason could be the makeup whenever he had to play Hyde since it did report that his face was sort of disfigured. He was such an excellent actor and I'm only discovering him years later lol! This movie definitely deserved an Oscar, why can't Hollywood just leave it alone and not do too many adaptations?! I know it was also adapted in 1920 but still, it's not great to leave this Hollywood gem out of the movie lot!
AD
