I remember watching this in Writer's Craft class when we were studying Carl Jung's theory and this movie does a good job as an example. The effects kind of remind me of the effects in Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast where they're more reliant on tricks and illusions than the overused CGI effects we're so used to.They're very impressive for their time and I really hope moviemakers do more of that in future 'cause they're so much more effective than computers.
Mr. Reviewer, I love your reviews. I like most of your opinions regarding this film, but I disagree with your take on the Spencer Tracy version. It has been a while since I saw it, but I remember it being really good. I was especially impressed by how damn evil Spencer Tracy could be, and I thought that he showed fantastic talent selling Hyde WITHOUT Jerry Lewis-monkey make-up. Do you think there's anything positive about it or should I re-watch it to prove to myself that it sucks?
This will sound like a rather random question, but why do characters clutch their throats during transformations? I've seen it happen other times in TV shows and films besides than this Jekyll and Hyde version. Any theories?
Also have you seen the Hammer version of the story The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll? I personally disliked that one more than the 41 version. Hammer films are nice and all, but while more original, that film wa skind of boring. Jekll hardly had any screentime and I couldn't really buy Hyde since not only did he not have any make-up whatsoever, he was a completely different actor. What made March so effective was he never denied he was bad, but you couldn't do anything about it. Hammer's lacked that.
Personally I always thought that the 1920 and 1941 versions hit the mark a bit more on the make-up when it comes to adapting from the story (Hyde's obviously deformed but in no explainable way), and I do think Spencer Tracy was a bit more subtle and quiet adding to the creepiness but overall March is much scarier, but then most of what was good about it was ripped off of the 1932 version. That's the best version and you're right it's just as impressive as CItizen Kane in it's own ways.
John Barrymore's transformation deserves all the credit it gets, but overall this movie seems like a much more enjoyable version. The 1920 version is pretty bland overall.
I havent seen this movie all the way through, but that clip at around 8:10, could have been an empty window in the wall thats been framed to look like a mirror when its just a window with a man looking through it from the other side.Just a thought ^_^.
There was no mirror it was only a frame hole in the wall with Fredrich March standing on the other side, and the butler could simply walk from the room with the camera in, through the door into the other room and walk up beside March to create the fluent shot.
The 40's version is not in any way terrible! I find it better than the 30's version. Hyde is neither over the top or a monkey in that version, just the evil that hides in all of us. It was a very stylish, and artistic version.
I watched this movie via Netflix because of this review, and it's now one of my favorites! I'm going to have to buy my own copy. The only thing I disagree with is Muriel---I think calling her a "drip" is maybe just a *bit* too harsh. I did absolutely LOVE Ivy, though, and the romance between Jekyll and Muriel IS a bit too melodramatic. I'm not a huge fan of horror movies, but I love classics, and I could watch this again and again.
Thank you for this! I'm currently responding to the 1931 version for my film and literature class and am about to watch the 1941 version. you gave me some insights that will be most helpful when watching and responding to the two.
what about doing a review of Notre dame de Paris by Victor Hugo? Or one of it's adaptations (though the adapations are terrible compared to the novel)
Miriam Hopkins was absolutely phenomenal in this film. She was probably the most versatile actress in the 1930's. Just look at the variety of roles she played. A most amazing actress all the way through her last major film, "The Chase" with a multitude of stars including Marlon Brando. Robert Redford said in his biography that Miriam Hopkins should have won the Academy Award for her outstanding performance, especially the scene when Miriam confronts Marlon Brando. She outdoes Brando!!!
@imlaughing2death its Bach's famous piece thats been dubbed the phantom theme song ironically. Its an orchestral (i can't spell for my life so if thats wrong, sorry...) version of Toccata and Fugue in D minor! (i'm assuming thats what u meant...)
I saw this during the summer, and was quite impressed. I've been meaning to catch the 1941 one, i think it is- I caught the last few minutes halloween night..
This was on yesterday. Nobody would watch it with me because it was black and white and everyone was talking like they'd taken Robitussin, but I so wanted to see it again.
The 1931 version is quite possibly the best movie version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, at least out of the all 17 versions I have seen. Not that there hasn't been good versions of J&H since, just that none of them really reaches to the same level as this one. And March is absolutely superb in the dual role. The only actors I can think that impress me even half as much as he does in this role(s) are Jean-Louis Barrault, Paul Massie and Jack Palance.
What a fantastic review. I finally saw this version just a few months ago and it really was terrific. The scene were Hyde is brutalizing Ivy was the first time I ever felt so uncomfortable watching something that I desperately wanted to just get up and leave. I also think that while March's Hyde is something to behold, his Jekyll was just as amazing. His body language when Ivy comes to him for help and his expressions really make that scene perfection.
That looks a great film! :D I've never seen it, but funnily enough I've got a book for kids on how to do monster makeup (probably from the 70s) which has that exact technique with the lights for changing Jekyll to Hyde.
As an aside, the way they do the mirror is it's not a mirror at all, but the actor being "reflected" behind a sheet of glass, in a room on the other side of the wall decorated to mirror the one the camera is in. Very simple and effective.
The lights and make up were different colors so that the morphing would change with the lights, kind of like how black and white photos look different with red, green, and blue filters. Yeah, he deserved that Oscar.
I love your Phantom reviews... and I thought just because it was Phantom movies.
Obviously I'm wrong because I loved this review!
You have a great style, please keep posting reviews. Love your taste in movies!
And I have to agree with most everything you said. Also very interesting to know this was made before censor stuff - I always thought the Ivy scenes (in bed) were a little racy for the times!
Can't believe they almost lost this movie forever!
I'm SO glad that you posted this! I was planning on watching this on Halloween from the TCM channel, but other plans came up and I got really bummed out. I'm definitly glad that you reviewed it!
Too bad there showing the 1941 version, not the 1931 version. Although Tracy's Hyde is probably closer to Stevenson's Hyde, I prefer March's makeup too, but really who's not going to notice a frickin CAVEMAN walking down the street. Yeah March's Hyde wouldn't have gotten away with anything in reality. People would be following him down the road, gawking and laughing at him, then he would have gotten a job offer at a sideshow. hahaha!
AWESOME putting that My Fair Lady clip in there...too funny!!! Awesome job with this review, I'll totally check this film out on Netflix. Can't wait for your next review... and until then, Happy Halloween, PhantomReviewer!!!!!!
@PhantomReviews It is. James Nesbitt is epic in it. It's also a very unusual interpretation of Hyde as the ferocity of love...I've always been a fan of a purely psychological Hyde, so that plus my undying love for Ingrid Bergman makes run to the defence of the Tracy movie, despite never having actually seen it XD AnywayI another version I enjoyed was a 2008 TV movie modernization with Dougray Scott. A small fish of an adaptation, but another good psychological Hyde nonetheless.
And, interestingly enough, in "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Hyde is described at a few points at looking somewhat ape-like. And it also had one of the worst lines ever: "If he is Mr. Hyde, I shall be Mr. Seek!"
thanks for another great review my friend! off to get Jekyll and Hyde.
i think i first realized women were hot when i was around 8, and saw that pic from the ALW Phantom, where Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford are standing in the illuminated mirror, and you can see right through her dress ;-)
(btw, i love your use of clips from other films ("Go--onnn") to help make a point!)
The first time I noticed women were really hot was when as a young boy and I saw the Mask with Cameron Diaz, which is itself a sort of Jekyll and Hyde story. I thought Ingrid Bergman was a lot hotter than the girl that played in the 1932 film although I thought the girl's acting in the 1932 version was more nerve racking, in a good way. I thought it was cool that they open with Jekyll playing Bach's toccata and fugue in d minor on the organ, reminded me of the Phantom.
mr hyde is freaky
greenway347 4 days ago
Love this movie! Have you seen the musical by Frank Wildhorn? It is more based on this movie than the book, and the music is stunning.
LerouxFan 3 weeks ago
1:31 God DAMN! Is that freaky!
HermaphroGynandro 1 month ago
I remember watching this in Writer's Craft class when we were studying Carl Jung's theory and this movie does a good job as an example. The effects kind of remind me of the effects in Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast where they're more reliant on tricks and illusions than the overused CGI effects we're so used to.They're very impressive for their time and I really hope moviemakers do more of that in future 'cause they're so much more effective than computers.
FantasmaLuna 4 months ago
Mr. Reviewer, I love your reviews. I like most of your opinions regarding this film, but I disagree with your take on the Spencer Tracy version. It has been a while since I saw it, but I remember it being really good. I was especially impressed by how damn evil Spencer Tracy could be, and I thought that he showed fantastic talent selling Hyde WITHOUT Jerry Lewis-monkey make-up. Do you think there's anything positive about it or should I re-watch it to prove to myself that it sucks?
DarthNaver1 5 months ago
3:59 - 4:08 - could this girl sound anymore sexually suggestive!!!!!!!!!
phantomgirl211203 9 months ago in playlist Every Phantom Review in order of movie age
Sweeney..... review SWEEEEEEENEY. Please? I promise I will never comment about this on any of your reviews again....
P. S. Do you know what that make-up technique is called?
KissMeQuenley 1 year ago 3
3:59 Now she can walk to acting school all by herself!
IrritatingAsp 1 year ago 10
ivey is ultra hot !
martinhymanson 1 year ago 2
This will sound like a rather random question, but why do characters clutch their throats during transformations? I've seen it happen other times in TV shows and films besides than this Jekyll and Hyde version. Any theories?
heartseed 1 year ago
Also have you seen the Hammer version of the story The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll? I personally disliked that one more than the 41 version. Hammer films are nice and all, but while more original, that film wa skind of boring. Jekll hardly had any screentime and I couldn't really buy Hyde since not only did he not have any make-up whatsoever, he was a completely different actor. What made March so effective was he never denied he was bad, but you couldn't do anything about it. Hammer's lacked that.
balrog13571 1 year ago
Personally I always thought that the 1920 and 1941 versions hit the mark a bit more on the make-up when it comes to adapting from the story (Hyde's obviously deformed but in no explainable way), and I do think Spencer Tracy was a bit more subtle and quiet adding to the creepiness but overall March is much scarier, but then most of what was good about it was ripped off of the 1932 version. That's the best version and you're right it's just as impressive as CItizen Kane in it's own ways.
balrog13571 1 year ago
John Barrymore's transformation deserves all the credit it gets, but overall this movie seems like a much more enjoyable version. The 1920 version is pretty bland overall.
compactdisk2 1 year ago
That girl saying "I can walk, sir!"
Is she this movies equivalent to the girl that Mr. Hyde tramples in the novel?..
MonkeyThunder5 1 year ago
@MonkeyThunder5 With any luck.
KissMeQuenley 11 months ago
This is weird because after I watched this, I
when to Sanford's and watched this on one of the T.V.
KOREAlchemist 1 year ago
I havent seen this movie all the way through, but that clip at around 8:10, could have been an empty window in the wall thats been framed to look like a mirror when its just a window with a man looking through it from the other side.Just a thought ^_^.
HoshinoLibra 1 year ago
You quoted Joel Schumacher??? Ewww, indeed :X
nerdsman567 1 year ago
This is the definative Jekyll And Hyde. Check it out.
TenderTrap86 1 year ago
"and puts her to bed" bow chicka bow wow! lol awesome review!
shmoogle14 1 year ago
2:04...do I detect some inspiration for Frank Wildhorn?
Mattbrain 1 year ago
Haha, very nice review. Interesting facts and it's funny. :)
Menathor 1 year ago
Quick question, I'm a but lost in translation, what does it mean when people call someone a "drip" or "drippy" =P
BeautyxinChains 1 year ago
@BeautyxinChains It means weak, unexciting, no personality, wimpish, unimpressive
PhantomReviews 1 year ago 2
i think that dr jekyll is sexy
brook1996 1 year ago 3
How they made the mirror shot?
There was no mirror it was only a frame hole in the wall with Fredrich March standing on the other side, and the butler could simply walk from the room with the camera in, through the door into the other room and walk up beside March to create the fluent shot.
Cheap, easy but very smart and intelligent :)
MoonPhantom 1 year ago
The 40's version is not in any way terrible! I find it better than the 30's version. Hyde is neither over the top or a monkey in that version, just the evil that hides in all of us. It was a very stylish, and artistic version.
anton1990 2 years ago
awesome review mang!!!
bettydaw1970 2 years ago
I ordered it some day ago and it arrived yesterday. I love it! :D
It saved a crappy day!
Thank you for inspire me to buy it! ^^
TheWanderingchild 2 years ago
I watched this movie via Netflix because of this review, and it's now one of my favorites! I'm going to have to buy my own copy. The only thing I disagree with is Muriel---I think calling her a "drip" is maybe just a *bit* too harsh. I did absolutely LOVE Ivy, though, and the romance between Jekyll and Muriel IS a bit too melodramatic. I'm not a huge fan of horror movies, but I love classics, and I could watch this again and again.
MarianneBrandon 2 years ago
Thank you for this! I'm currently responding to the 1931 version for my film and literature class and am about to watch the 1941 version. you gave me some insights that will be most helpful when watching and responding to the two.
trina4lesshate 2 years ago
what about doing a review of Notre dame de Paris by Victor Hugo? Or one of it's adaptations (though the adapations are terrible compared to the novel)
Peadarisback 2 years ago
I reviewed 3 Hunchback movies in my "Phantom Spinoffs" special, part 2.
PhantomReviews 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ah okay thanks I'll check them out
Peadarisback 2 years ago
Miriam Hopkins was absolutely phenomenal in this film. She was probably the most versatile actress in the 1930's. Just look at the variety of roles she played. A most amazing actress all the way through her last major film, "The Chase" with a multitude of stars including Marlon Brando. Robert Redford said in his biography that Miriam Hopkins should have won the Academy Award for her outstanding performance, especially the scene when Miriam confronts Marlon Brando. She outdoes Brando!!!
RICHARDDAVISMCLEOD 2 years ago
What's the beginning music? It's so familiar, but I can't place the name.
imlaughing2death 2 years ago
@imlaughing2death its Bach's famous piece thats been dubbed the phantom theme song ironically. Its an orchestral (i can't spell for my life so if thats wrong, sorry...) version of Toccata and Fugue in D minor! (i'm assuming thats what u meant...)
DrNoYes9 1 year ago
do you know if this movie follow the book pretty well, for the most part.
becky91101 2 years ago
Wonderful review as always! I have not seen this one, but I will now!
sarahisavampire 2 years ago 2
I saw this during the summer, and was quite impressed. I've been meaning to catch the 1941 one, i think it is- I caught the last few minutes halloween night..
amortenti 2 years ago
"puts her to bed"...bow chicka bow wow!
shmoogle14 2 years ago
ya know what? thanks to you im now obsessed with BBC's Jekyll i love it i love it!
underthemasqueMoon 2 years ago
lol Great review.
thewerepuppygrr 2 years ago
Jekyll and Hyde w/ Fred March is my favorite adaptaion. One of my favorite books as well.
your reviews are awesome! Can't wait to see whats next.
gizmobizness1 2 years ago
This was on yesterday. Nobody would watch it with me because it was black and white and everyone was talking like they'd taken Robitussin, but I so wanted to see it again.
jarvisel 2 years ago
the ending sequence is most definitely powerful and it cant be helped but feel pity for him. (:
Neko17 2 years ago
The 1931 version is quite possibly the best movie version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, at least out of the all 17 versions I have seen. Not that there hasn't been good versions of J&H since, just that none of them really reaches to the same level as this one. And March is absolutely superb in the dual role. The only actors I can think that impress me even half as much as he does in this role(s) are Jean-Louis Barrault, Paul Massie and Jack Palance.
Over all, a really good review once more!
kriitikko 2 years ago
That is a good review! I saw this on cable a few months back. You'd be great doing reviews of classic horror movies!
Deepdesert 2 years ago
What a fantastic review. I finally saw this version just a few months ago and it really was terrific. The scene were Hyde is brutalizing Ivy was the first time I ever felt so uncomfortable watching something that I desperately wanted to just get up and leave. I also think that while March's Hyde is something to behold, his Jekyll was just as amazing. His body language when Ivy comes to him for help and his expressions really make that scene perfection.
renaleria 2 years ago
Great pick for your Halloween review!
lshield1 2 years ago 2
That looks a great film! :D I've never seen it, but funnily enough I've got a book for kids on how to do monster makeup (probably from the 70s) which has that exact technique with the lights for changing Jekyll to Hyde.
As an aside, the way they do the mirror is it's not a mirror at all, but the actor being "reflected" behind a sheet of glass, in a room on the other side of the wall decorated to mirror the one the camera is in. Very simple and effective.
KryssLaBryn 2 years ago
The lights and make up were different colors so that the morphing would change with the lights, kind of like how black and white photos look different with red, green, and blue filters. Yeah, he deserved that Oscar.
Thanks for the My Fair Lady reference. ^_^
Keep doing more of these! This one was great!
Enabsflow1 2 years ago
I love your Phantom reviews... and I thought just because it was Phantom movies.
Obviously I'm wrong because I loved this review!
You have a great style, please keep posting reviews. Love your taste in movies!
And I have to agree with most everything you said. Also very interesting to know this was made before censor stuff - I always thought the Ivy scenes (in bed) were a little racy for the times!
Can't believe they almost lost this movie forever!
Norina1982 2 years ago 2
THANK YOU *o* one of my favorite movies ever <3
greenappletea123 2 years ago
I'm guessing this is where they got the story for the musical version.
Hasselhoffhater 2 years ago 2
I really liked this version!! But it bothered me as they said "Jee-kll". IDK why, it just bothered me.
BwayBoundChristian 2 years ago
I'm SO glad that you posted this! I was planning on watching this on Halloween from the TCM channel, but other plans came up and I got really bummed out. I'm definitly glad that you reviewed it!
TGITPC 2 years ago
Too bad there showing the 1941 version, not the 1931 version. Although Tracy's Hyde is probably closer to Stevenson's Hyde, I prefer March's makeup too, but really who's not going to notice a frickin CAVEMAN walking down the street. Yeah March's Hyde wouldn't have gotten away with anything in reality. People would be following him down the road, gawking and laughing at him, then he would have gotten a job offer at a sideshow. hahaha!
phantomzeroex 2 years ago
Oh, really? Huh, I guess I didn't miss out that much after all.
TGITPC 2 years ago
You are my hero!! *chuckle* you should review the musical "Jekyll and Hyde"... With Hasselhoff, who can't sing.
Spectacular review. I should netflix this film.
DarthxErik 2 years ago 2
AWESOME putting that My Fair Lady clip in there...too funny!!! Awesome job with this review, I'll totally check this film out on Netflix. Can't wait for your next review... and until then, Happy Halloween, PhantomReviewer!!!!!!
FlowerGirl9016 2 years ago 2
I love the Jekyll/Hyde story, but I only know it from the musical. I'll have to check out this movie. Anther great review PhantomReviewer.
drjax1994 2 years ago
Yay! You're back! I totally want to see this now. ^_^
FrauofGermany 2 years ago
hey PhantomReviews Katlyn here
Luved the review i just saw this movie for the first time a couple of months ago my fav besides the musical which is so great go check it out
Phantom Nerd -Katlyn
KCvampsandphantoms 2 years ago
can you review Mary Reliy? I know it's not a classic but I would love to hear your review of it.
AYoung1368 2 years ago
I havent actually seen it, although i do want to. If you like J/H you should check out the BBCs "Jekyll", totally awesome series.
PhantomReviews 2 years ago 2
@PhantomReviews The Rotten Tomatoes Show actually did a segment about bad Irish accents in movies and Mary Reilly was on that list, haha.
Mattbrain 1 year ago
@PhantomReviews It is. James Nesbitt is epic in it. It's also a very unusual interpretation of Hyde as the ferocity of love...I've always been a fan of a purely psychological Hyde, so that plus my undying love for Ingrid Bergman makes run to the defence of the Tracy movie, despite never having actually seen it XD AnywayI another version I enjoyed was a 2008 TV movie modernization with Dougray Scott. A small fish of an adaptation, but another good psychological Hyde nonetheless.
MadameChristie 1 year ago
How the hell did he talk with those comicly enormous TEETH.
thecopykidofthestarz 2 years ago
5:29 huge side boob!!!
PharaohHazard 2 years ago 4
This is really refreshing! This is a really nice review! :D Well done!
EmilyGreene1984 2 years ago
And, interestingly enough, in "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," Hyde is described at a few points at looking somewhat ape-like. And it also had one of the worst lines ever: "If he is Mr. Hyde, I shall be Mr. Seek!"
Biskuits 2 years ago
Argh, I haven't seen this movie in ages. I'm so glad you chose it for your Halloween Review :} Top notch as usual, PR! <3
Biskuits 2 years ago
thanks for another great review my friend! off to get Jekyll and Hyde.
i think i first realized women were hot when i was around 8, and saw that pic from the ALW Phantom, where Sarah Brightman and Michael Crawford are standing in the illuminated mirror, and you can see right through her dress ;-)
(btw, i love your use of clips from other films ("Go--onnn") to help make a point!)
doomfeather 2 years ago 2
The first time I noticed women were really hot was when as a young boy and I saw the Mask with Cameron Diaz, which is itself a sort of Jekyll and Hyde story. I thought Ingrid Bergman was a lot hotter than the girl that played in the 1932 film although I thought the girl's acting in the 1932 version was more nerve racking, in a good way. I thought it was cool that they open with Jekyll playing Bach's toccata and fugue in d minor on the organ, reminded me of the Phantom.
phantomzeroex 2 years ago
One of the greatest J&H films out there.
HydeCorner 2 years ago
This was a great review.
jarvisel 2 years ago
Yay a new review ^_^ Although I though that Hyde looked like Monkey.
RebelFounderOdogoo 2 years ago