El hombre y el monstruo (1931) watch online HD

It's amazing that years before Sigmund Freud was writing about stuff like the ego and the id, Robert Louis Stevenson, a great writer, but not a man of science, was able to grasp at what Freud later said about human behavior. There lurks in all of us a beast capable of doing great evil, that man's civilized self is forever trying to control.

Henry Jekyll, London society doctor, is engaging in experiments to prove that theory. He's a gentleman in every sense of the word, engaged to a proper English girl played by Rose Hobart here. It's funny, but in none of the adaptions of this story is it ever explained what could be in the potion that Jekyll concocts and drinks. But drink it he does and Jekyll becomes the simian like Mr. Hyde, evil incarnate itself.

Another reviewer pointed out the film is actually based on a play adapted from the novel and done originally on stage by Richard Mansfield in London. In that play the character of Ivy, a girl no better than she ought to be attracts the attention of Jekyll when he stops a man from assaulting her. He takes her up to her flat and she makes an effort to seduce him. He resists, but the beast within remembers.

This film becomes one of the first to deal with the phenomenon of stalking. Miriam Hopkins is a comely Ivy and Ivy herself is one of the most luckless characters ever created in fiction whether she was in the original story or not.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde made movie audiences and critics start to take Fredric March seriously as actor. Up to then he had played a variety of lightweight parts on screen. Even so Paramount after this still insisted on still casting him in those roles after he won an Academy Award for Best Actor. When he got free of that studio contract March got the parts he was so capable of.

When MGM wanted to remake the film for Spencer Tracy they bought not just the rights from Paramount, but the film itself. It was not seen for many years and the VHS version I have of it has an MGM opening logo, but the cast at the end says Paramount. Kind of unusual to say the least.

I do disagree with the application of the term science fiction to this story. Hyde is a beast. But he's not something created by nature or man, nor is he an alien from another world. We all have a Hyde within us, it's how well we control him in our selves, and how well as a society we control the Hydes that would do us harm that deems whether we survive as a society or not.

Hyde is very human, with no superhuman powers and no created weaponry. Takes an extraordinary actor to play Jekyll and Hyde and do it well. Only the best take a crack at it like John Barrymore, Spencer Tracy, Jack Palance, and Kirk Douglas. And March is one of the very best. See for yourself.

For all the existing film versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" (1886), this 1931 Paramount offering starring the incomparable Frederic March is probably the best. None quite follow the original book, whose tale is actually told backwards in a way. The book does not follow a series of linear events that lead to the so-called "transformation". Instead, rumors of a strange man surface between two characters in the very opening. We learn about Hyde first before Jekyll, which is not the way any film adaptation has ever told the story.

Still, the present film has a lot going for it. At the forefront is Frederic March in the classic dual role of good and evil. When he first becomes Hyde, I thought another actor was playing the role, it's that good! Another distinctive aspect is the camera work which must have been extremely innovative for its time. The opening moments are shot with a first person perspective. The transformation is done relatively seamlessly considering CGI effects had yet to be invented. There are other moments of shadows and dark corridors. The atmospheric fog that permeates the entire film is worth the price of admission.

As stated by other reviewers, some of the dialog hearkens back to an earlier era of the Vaudeville Melodrama. Characters didn't just love each other, they loved each other for eternity! Still a fine film all things considered, dated perhaps in places, but still March's performance is unbeatable, and definitely deserved of the Academy Award for Best Actor.

What happened to movies in the late 30's and early 40's? Why did they become so stale and stagey? "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" would be considered downright antique to many of today's casual filmgoers, but it feels so much more dynamic technically and thematically than many films that came out later in its decade. The answer, of course, is that this movie came out before enforcement of the Production Code, at which time artistry in films--both style and substance--took a nose dive.

This film is worth watching for its stunning camera work alone. It doesn't suffer from any of the awkwardness other films working in the early years of sound do. The camera's always moving, there's terrific use of light and shadow, and the scenes showing the transformation of Jekyll to Hyde are seamlessly filmed in what appear to be uninterrupted shots, leaving you to ponder the sheer physical behind-the-scenes mechanics of them.

But this movie isn't just more technically advanced than films later in the decade; it's more adult in content too. No filming of this story ten years later (I've not seen the Victor Fleming version for comparison) would dare add the level of sexuality that this story does. Fredric March is very good in the dual role, and when he transforms into Mr. Hyde, you can see that it's everything within his power not to rip the dress right off whatever female he happens to be with and mount her right there. I'm not exaggerating; the film is really that frank.

Creepy good fun.

Grade: A-

A neglected masterpiece. When I picked up the two sided DVD I was excited because the Fleming/Tracy version is on the order of a guilty pleasure. But I soon realized that I had never seen the 1931 version. This is a film that lingers in the memories of many film goers as still photographs of Frederic March in his makeup. Watching it was a revelation. The same changes to original content - Jekyl's bride-to-be and her family - continue to wear wearily on the production, but nothing could prepare me for March's work. As often as we've seen "transformations" - this one is the BEST. Then young lion director Rouben Mamouilan pulls out some dandy tricks. And the sexually charged atmosphere before the Hayes code - was well - sexy as hell. Do yourself a favor and watch it.

An exceptional cast and intelligent direction seals the quality of the first 'talkie' version of Robert Louis Stevenson's tale. Often hailed as the best of the many screen adaptations of the story, director Robert Moumalin exploits the symbolic potential of the tale as well as boldly tapping into popular Freudian trends concerning sexual repression. The result is not a by-the-numbers rendition but an effective interpretation with quirks and dimensions of its own. Yet the film belongs to Frederic March who scooped an Oscar for his sensational dual role. Although as Jekyll he unfortunately has to trade flowery romantic dialogue with Rose Hobart, there can be no disputing the menace of his Hyde, with his simian-like appearance, top hat, cloak and cane, who turns cockney hooker Miriam Hopkins' life into a nightmare. It's a breathtaking transformation both physically (thanks to stellar make-up and special effects) and artistically and is undoubtedly the centrepiece of this excellent vintage classic.

Robert Louis Stevenson's classic tale of split personality has been filmed before in 1920 with John Barrymore and in 1941 with Spencer Tracy, but Rouben Mamoulian's expressionist 1931 version stands head and shoulders above the rest. First of all, you have Fredric March, whose tour-de-force performance as the good-natured Jekyll and the monstrous Hyde earned him the Best Actor Oscar. Second, the camera work by Karl Struss brilliantly captures the mood of the story. And lastly, the transformation sequences set an enormous precedent for the later monster movies. It all blends together to form one of most amazing horror movies of the 1930's. Even today, it still has the power to mesmerize and send chills down the spine of even the most hardened horror fan.

As this film demonstrates, director Rouben Mamoulian (Applause (1929)) and cinematographer Karl Struss (Sunrise (1927)) were two of the great innovators in renewing the role of the camera for the talkies. Lesser talents began the talkies much the same as silent films began: with a static camera. The sound is still creaky, as usual, with awkward silences, but it's not bothersome. The editing isn't always seamless here, either, and, at times, makes the film seem unpolished, but that, too, is minor. This is the best version of Robert Louis Stevenson's novella "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", in my opinion, and that has very little to do with the actual story adaptation, which comes more from the stage, anyhow. It's the role of the camera that's remarkable.

I don't mean to say that this adaptation is of little interest; it's especially interesting when compared to the novella and its other adaptations. The 1920-John Barrymore version features a more grotesque Hyde and a stiffer Jekyll. Here, Jekyll is, at first, full of gaiety and youthful exuberance. That's more faithful to the novel, but also reflects the filmmakers' intentions and the changes in Hollywood. The 1920 film was bolder in content in some respects; it was a mood piece of horror and atmosphere. The fogy lamp-lit slums of London are still realized vividly in this one, but much of the feeling in them is lost. On the other hand, the mirror motif comes out more here, which corresponds nicely with the doppelgänger (or doubles) theme inherit in the story. This 1931 film is of the classic Hollywood era. The added emphasis on the romance between Jekyll and Muriel is a result. This version is about more than the story, though; the major focus is in the camera-work.

The film begins with about three and half minutes of long point-of-view takes, with a mobile camera, from the perspective of Dr. Jekyll. It establishes the camera as an active participant in the film, rather than merely a static recorder. Throughout the picture, the camera continually moves--from slight zooms, dollies, pans and tilts to dance-like tracking shots during the party sequence. Additionally, some extreme close-ups show only a character's eyes. A POV shot during Jekyll's first transition into Hyde turns into spinning memories, which is in addition to the special effects that allow for transformations that are seen with fluent, unbroken rhythm from the camera's eye.

The camera positioning is varied, as well, and some shots are extraordinary just in their positions. The photography exploits the sets to greater effect occasionally, and the filmmakers position props with the camera especially well and in rather thematic ways that apply to the story. Yet, the photography is most brilliant when not subject to much scene dissection: long takes that are unbroken and add more fluency to the already tight plot.

One could say this is showy film-making; even the transitional effects seem to draw attention to themselves: lengthy dissolves that linger as superimposed images (such as the image of Ivy's legs over the image of Jekyll and Dr. Lanyon's debate) and wipes that create brief split-screen shots. But, the camera is the most essential part of film-making (along with editing), and it seems negligent to subject it to a role of impotence--to just recording an enacted play. This 1931 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a cinematic artwork and shows what film should be concerning the role of its most basic apparatus.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is Paramount doing Universal better than Universal did themselves. While this was a cash-in on the genre success of the smaller studio, if all bandwagons were this well made then cinema would be a much richer experience.

Oh, it's dated of course. A form of stiff melodrama where women still said things like "Darling... I wish this moment would last forever" and men replied "Oh, I love you... be near me always." And I love how the camera coyly veers away during the kissing scene. An odd dialogue gem is Dr.Jekyll (Frederic March) proclaiming: "We'll be so gloriously happy that even the French will be jealous of us." Look out too for Edgar Norton as Poole, offering advice to Jekyll when told his fiancée will be away for a month. "I beg your pardon, sir," he says, "but may I suggest that you ought to amuse yourself?" Yes, the dialogue is overblown, but in a wonderful, glorious way. Like a great stream-of-consciousness from the pen of a man who sees screen realism as just a petty distraction.

But what really works is the innovation of the film, almost dripping off the celluloid. I don't know if those wipes from scene to scene, the fades and the first-person perspective were originated here, but they're used superbly nonetheless. Often the frame hesitates between wipes, carving the illusion that so much is going on simultaneously that one screen cannot house it all. And the single take transformation (As Hyde says, "What you are about to see is a secret you are sworn not to reveal" – it's tinted lens effects were kept hidden for many years) is absolutely magnificent, even 70 years on.

Every single shot is worked out with a mind to an unusual angle, or a unique way of framing things, but never so that it's showy. Often the main action will be taken via longshot, the camera choosing to focus on a sole candelabrum in the foreground while the scene plays out. It's subtexts of bare backs; cleavages, thighs and garter belts are also quite racy for the time. Look how even when Jekyll has left Ivy behind, her seductively rocking leg is merged with the next scene for nearly half a minute to indicate temptation is lingering in his mind. Outstanding.

The sets, too, are unparalleled, street settings often running to several levels and making a mockery of the rival studio's sub-realist fare. The outdoor segments set to rain are exquisite, and look out for an amusing scene – the first between Miriam Hopkins and Hyde – where they engage in an accidental spitting competition. As he says the phrase "pig sty" an unintentional (?) spray of saliva coats his co-star, while a large globule of phlegm hits him in return as she says "Buckingham Palace."

Weirdly, the Doctor's name is pronounced "Gee-kul", not the commonly held "Jek-ull". I've always thought Jekyll seemed a creepier name than the passive-sounding Hyde. Maybe that's the point, and the duality of such a concept is passed forward by many shots of Hyde seeing his face via a mirror. March is not without the wit to add humour to his other persona (who resembles more Dick Emery's comedy Vicar than anything truly horrific), and is in equal terms expert in both pathos and menace. His physicality in the role also cannot be overlooked. Not only that, but you get the real feeling that you're joining March on a discovery; with each new turn of plot as much a surprise to him as it is to us. This is a real loving performance, a far cry from the "take the money and run" sensibilities of The Wolf Man.

Hyde has his violent moments, threatening to glass a man with a broken bottle – "His face was made for it" – and intimating rape. It's a showstopping performance and there's even one scene where Hyde appears to break the fourth wall – yet he's looking through the camera and into the next room. Mere technicalities are beneath the thoroughly insane Hyde. "I shall go only as far as the door, and the sight of your tears will bring me back" he hisses to a terrified Hopkins with double-meaning menace.

With it's literary script that encompasses both Bach and Shakespeare, it's a lovably fluid, fast-paced piece. Sometimes it's not always subtle – take the scene where Hopkins tells Jekyll he's got "the kindest heart in the world" and asks him for a bottle of poison "so I can kill myself, sir." But look at the anguish on March's face as the guilt of his alter ego's actions bleed through. If only all films could be made with such care and love in their craft. Absolutely Tremendous. 9/10.

While the titles "Frankenstein" and "Dracula" are the most popular surefire contenders for the most revolutionary horror film of 1931, I would strongly argue that the adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's story "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is another title to be considered. This film is not only significant in the fact that it's one of only two movies for there to be a tie between two actors in receiving the Academy Award for Best Leading Actor, but it's revolutionary in its visual effects and Fredric March's portrayal of a ferocious two-sided madman and the effect he has on the people around him as he jumps between sides.

It's because of this film that many are familiar with the story of Jekyll and Hyde. And why shouldn't it be? The film uses the original Stevenson story only for inspiration and foundation and instead uses its own imagination to create something new and yet surprisingly powerful in its entertainment. Is it scary? No. Not by today's standards anyway. But is it haunting? Yes. It haunts you in the same way that Count Orlok haunted you in "Nosferatu" (1922). The vampire didn't scare you in that film. But the image of a tall, pale rodent-like humanoid stalking about a castle hall after a petrified protagonist lingers on in your memory. As does the memory of Fredric March as she transforms from a handsome young scientist into an ape-like monster that begins to hound and possess a helpless young woman played with great enthusiasm and energy by Miriam Hopkins, most of whose performance had to be cut from the film due to censorship and therefore cost her the possibility of receiving an Academy Award nomination. Fredric March is equally brilliant as Jekyll and Hyde. The film also stars Rose Hobart as Jekyll's fiancée, Halliwell Hobbes as her suspicious father, Edgar Norton as the comical, stammering butler and Holmes Herbert in the one role that I think should have been developed a little more for the character does have impact in the last third of the story.

Now I saw this film after I saw the 1941 remake with Spencer Tracy and for those not familiar with that film, let me just warn you to see this movie first. The remake follows the same story almost as if it were by the book and recreates a lot of scenes, but it does not deliver the same impact even though Tracy is almost as great as March in this film. It's only half the movie that this truly entertaining 1931 horror opus is.

Very impressive - and, as other commentators have pointed out, surprisingly sexy - adaptation of the classic tale.

Dr. Jekyll (the great Frederic March, an Oscar winner for this) is a scientist who has dedicated himself to discovering a way to separate the "good" and "evil" sides of human nature. His stated goal is to make it possible for all people to be rid of their "evil" side for good so that it will "trouble them no more"; this, in turn, will give the "good" side freedom to reach its full potential.

Jekyll is engaged to a beautiful young woman named Muriel (Rose Hobart) whose father insists they wait for marriage. Jekyll is in love with (and let's be honest, hot for) his fiancée and wants to marry sooner, but his intended does not want to hurt her father's feelings by going against his wishes, so he agrees to wait for her.

Meanwhile, Jekyll has met a local tart named Ivy (Miriam Hopkins, spectacularly sexy and decidedly non-waifish). He hears her scream - it appears, although we don't see what actually happened, that she has been hit and knocked down by a man - and he carries her up to the loft she lives in. After getting a good look at her handsome benefactor, our Ivy decides to turn on both the "poor-me's" and the sex appeal, of which she has plenty, especially in bed wearing nothing but a garter. (The scene contains no nudity but innuendo and tension aplenty). When he finally tells her he has to go, she calls out the words I have used as the title of my review to him.

In the meantime, his tries a new potion he has concocted on himself. This leads to his first transformation into "Hyde", who, in this version, is portrayed as somewhat ape-like, suggesting an evolutionary throwback (always allowing for the theory of evolution). This character could care less about the mores of the society around him. Hyde's first emergence is cut short before he can cause any trouble by the arrival of his alter-ego's manservant.

But Muriel and her father have gone away, and Jekyll soon gives in to temptation, drinking the potion again. This time, he DOES go out, and immediately seeks out what Jekyll wanted but denied himself - Ivy. He finds her at a seedy music hall where she performs/hangs out, invites her to his table, and comes on like the Cro-Magnon he is, scoffing at men like his alter-ego who "like your (Ivy's) legs but talk about your garter", referring to the fact that Jekyll had warned Ivy earlier that her garter was tight enough to cut off her circulation.

Ivy is soon (and not exactly willingly) "shacked up" with Hyde, refusing to leave or try to find help for fear of him. But Hyde reads in the paper that his fiancée and her father are coming back, and informs Ivy that he will have to leave her for a time, but, "If you do one thing I don't approve of while I'm gone . . . the least little thing, mind you . . . I'll show you what horror means". Their goodbye scene is one of the most chilling in movie history, perhaps as close as any filmmaker of this period would ever come to an actual "rape" scene.

Jekyll is reunited with his fiancée and future father-in-law, and is able to convince the latter not to make them wait so long for their wedding.

He goes home overjoyed, but not for long. You see, he sent Ivy fifty pounds cash as a way to try to make amends for his treatment of her as Hyde. But she appears in person. She doesn't want his money -Hyde would only hurt her if he found out she had it- she wants help getting out of the trap she is in with him (at one point, she shows Jekyll her back, and although we are not shown the actual wounds, she says, "Pretty, ain't it? It's a whip, that's what it is, a whip!).

Jekyll, feeling more ashamed than ever of his behavior as Hyde, gives his word to Ivy that Hyde will never come back; she can keep the money without fear.

Feeling better - after all, he has made amends to Ivy, he will soon be married to his fiancée, and he is rid of Hyde, or so he thinks, Jekyll goes for a pleasant walk in a park. But he sees a cat stalking - and, although we are not shown this, presumably killing and eating - a bird, and this brings out the predator within himself again. After another transformation, Hyde seeks out Ivy and, after a horrific scene in which he confronts her over going to Jekyll for help, kills her.

Jekyll reads in the paper what he has done (we are led to assume, I think, that he has no memory of his actions as Hyde)and decides that the only "peanance" he can offer is to call off his engagement (not to mention that he now feels he must leave Muriel for her own safety).

But he transforms yet again - it's worth noting here that March is able to portray this transformation with his back to the camera as he peers in at the sobbing Muriel, simply through body language - and goes back into his now ex-fiancée's house. Hearing his daughter's scream, her father comes running in and is killed by Hyde.

It all ends in a police chase and the death by shooting of Hyde/Jekyll.

Worth a look, definitely.

Cheers.

This is viewed by many to be the best cinematic re-telling of Stevenson's original work, which is a tad odd as very little of the novella remains. The concept of the duality of human nature is still present in March's Dr Jekyll/Hyde, but a whole lot of sex and daring visual effects have been added to Stevenson's controversial Victorian work. The result? An excellent and entertaining film that will stay in the mind for quite some time.

Fredric March, one of the best actors of all time, won the Academy Award for playing the dual roles. It's not hard to see why- March is excellent in this one, and plays both Jekyll and Hyde with enthusiasm and vigour. It's a very theatrical performance by today's standards. but what a fun performance it is! March shows his incredible acting range here.

March's Jekyll is a repressed Victorian doctor who is interested in both separating the two sides of human nature- 'good' and 'evil'- from each other, and quickly marrying his rich fiancé Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart). A slight hitch in his plans- Muriel's father insists that the two lovers must wait eight months before they are married, so they can wed on the anniversary of his own wedding. It's a rather laughable concept actually, but it serves it's purpose as the pre-cursor to March's wild rampage as Hyde. It seems the primary reason Jekyll wants to marry Muriel is to bed her, and when he can't do that, he takes a concoction of drugs and turns into the simian, sexually uninhibited Hyde.

March's make-up almost destroyed his wonderful looks forever, so it deserves a mention here. Looking at through today's CGI-trained eyes, March's Hyde is ridiculously overdone and more comical than scary. Tracy's 1941 Hyde is a much subtler figure, which suits the narrative better in some ways. However, Mamoulian effectively conveys to the audience in his version that Hyde is having a lot of fun, is liberated in his personal and sexual freedom, hence the 'comical' aspects. March, amazing in both comedy and drama, plays him at first like a free-wheeling puppy, eager for discovery, than as a real monster as he degenerates both in appearance and behaviour. The simian make-up suits the notion of Hyde being 'semi-evolved' in nature, so it all works out in the end.

Miriam Hopkins is the Cockney slut Ivy who Jekyll good-naturedly attends to at first, then brutalizes her as Hyde. March's first encounter as Jekyll with Hopkin's Hyde is a erotically-charged, provocative affair. Jekyll's primal instincts and his need to unleash them, quickly, are displayed in his overt sexual interest in Ivy. She's a girl who knows the value of sex, too, as she sexily strips for him after he makes a suggestive comment that her garter is perhaps too tight. For those interested in film history, take note of these powerful scenes between March and Hopkins- they would help bring on the Production Code in a couple of years. A sexually aroused Jekyll is grabbed and kissed by an explicit Ivy while she lies visibly naked in bed, something that would be absolutely banished from films in just a few years.

Hopkins turns in an excellent performance in this one, very convincing as the 'Tart With A Heart' Ivy. She's a brazen, sexual creature, complete with brassy blonde hair and cleavage, yet she's also sympathetic . Her situation with Hyde (where she is 'kept' by him) is borne as much out of economic necessity as it is out of total fear. And total fear is what Hopkins does best here- her scenes with March ravishing her as Hyde are among the best in film history. She's a cheap, tragic figure and provides an interesting contrast to the 'other side' of Victorian society reflected in Jekyll's fiancé Muriel.

Hobart is rather weak in a role that is, admittedly, poorly written. She has a one-dimensional role, and Hopkins is given much more opportunity to shine. Interesting to see March and Hopkins battle it out, acting-wise.

Mamoulian builds an amazing atmosphere here with some studio-bound, yet very Expressionistic sets. Lighting is used to great effect, and the camera work was revolutionary for it's time. The subjective camera-work at the beginning where we see the action through Jekyll's eyes was innovative (a little shaky, but innovative all the same)as were the wipes used constantly to juxtapose Ivy and Muriel. The garden party scene with March and Hobart has some oddly fascinating shots, with Mamoulian focusing on the lover's eyes and foreheads when they are professing their love. Symbolism is used nicely throughout, with a number of prominent statues and paintings depicting naked women. The fire-and-brimstone hell imagery of Jekyll's lab is also a clever visual effect- Jekyll is truly a man about to 'boil over'.

The transformation sequences are amazing for their time, and March acts them so well. Much of the dialogue spoken is melodramatic and rather hokey, yet we have some great lines. There's some rather fascinating religious overtones to March's Jekyll who is looked upon as a God-like figure by a number of characters. The crippled girl's cry, with hands out, to Jekyll 'I can walk sir!' is one of religious ecstasy, and Ivy looks upon him as a saint who can save her from Hyde. Alas, that cannot be. Hyde is a sinner as Jekyll is a saint, and we know exactly what he does with Ivy when the scenes fade to black.

I consider this better than 'Dracula' or 'Frankenstein' (both 1931 films) for Mamoulian's stylish direction, the presence of viable female characters, the brilliant camera-work, and the acting of March and Hopkins.

Not the original source material, but a darn good film that uses the female characters and the addition of sex to underline the dual side of man.

Rouben Mamoulian gives us an erotic, scary vision of man as beast, illustrating the dangers of sexual repression with a hairy paw. He has at his disposal the great Karl Struss, whose photography helps crystallize the symbols of lust and virtuous chastity. Mostly lust.

Fredric March's Hyde stands yet as one of the most terrifying beasts ever captured on film, his hair a silverback gorilla's mane, his teeth protruding like shards of broken china, his broad negroid nostrils a stark contrast to Jekyll's pretty aquiline features... but the eyes: March always has the eyes of a degenerate, no matter what he plays. This is the chief appeal of his urbanity, this lurking hint of monstrousness, and when Hyde is unleashed, crying "Freedom!", the eyes dart with hideous delight, and we squirm to see the thing within, without.

Hyde's sudden entrance to Miriam Hopkins' parlor, his silent glare from the landing, the catlike menace of his approach to the cowering women... this is what horror means. Nispel, Roth, take a lesson.

I haven't read Stevenson's famous novel, but this film is adapted from a play which is supposedly a lot different anyway. The story is really not especially great. A scientist makes a potion that turns him into a total spazz. The spazz version ruins Dr. Jekyll's romance with Rose Hobart and tortures a loose woman, played by Miriam Hopkins. The film turns out to be completely amazing, however, thanks to the lead performance, by Fredric March, and the elegant direction by Rouben Mamoulian. Every time I see March in a film, I become more impressed by his range. Of course, this is a perfect vehicle to demonstrate one's range, and he excels as both Jekyll and Hyde, though his Hyde is what most will remember. Looking at his filmography, Mamoulian directed relatively few films for a director of his era (not to mention talent). I need to see more, most notably Love Me Tonight, but he will always be a genius in my book for Queen Christina. His direction of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is beautiful and nearly flawless. A lot of the film is made from the direct point-of-view of Jekyll, and he uses a first-person technique that works brilliantly. Between March and Mamoulian, the general silliness of the story is completely made up for. March's female co-stars, Hopkins and Hobart, are quite good, as well.

One of my favorite horror films, everything in this movie is great, the cinematography, the acting, the writing, the characters, the direction, everything, there are some ambitious camera angles, and a great opening.

This is a pre-code horror film, so there are some disturbing moments in the film, such as the abuse that Hyde shows to the woman, even some of the violence in the film, but it has a point to it.

The movie is about the duality of man, the good side of a man, the one that chooses to do the right thing, the one that chooses to be polite and educated, while the other side its more like an animal, it only follows its primal instincts, the film its surrounded with symbolism about this duality, and what happens if the animal side of a man takes complete control over him.

Overall, its a great film, I definitely recommend it.

Everybody knows the famous Universal classic monster movies "Dracula" and "Frankenstein", which both are also from 1931. Not nearly as many people known or have seen this movie, that in my opinion is just as good and worthy of the 'classic' status as both of those two movies.

This movie quite surprised me honestly. I expected this movie to be good but not that good, as it turned out it was. It's a great story told with lots of creativity. It makes the story tense and compelling and the action even spectacular. The story itself on its own is already great but it becomes even better and more powerful through the way it is told in the movie.

Above all the movie is a very beautiful one that is filled with symbolism and creatively put together sequences. The entire movie has some great looking costumes and settings and is brilliantly filmed. Especially the cinematography is fantastic. The movie is filled with sequences that are shot from Jekyll's point of view. It provides the movie with some very special moments, although those sequences seem pretty random to be honest. The best moment with this is the begin sequence, which lasts about 4 minutes (although it obviously has some cuts in it) and is shot entirely from Jekyll's point of view and it has some creative moments in it, such as use of shadow and mirror look. It's not that realistic looking but it's creative and refreshing nevertheless.

The story is about the eternal battle of good versus evil, only this time set in the mind of one person. The sequences were the main character switches between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are well balanced, with as a result that both characters, which are the same but yet so totally different, work out just as well. It makes the drama feel realistic and sensible and the 'horror' tense and unpredictable.

The movie certainly benefits from Frederich March's performance, as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He plays both the characters totally differently and at times it's hard to believe both characters are performed by the main character. He is very believable in both parts, which are completely different from each other. He plays Dr. Jekyll sensible and Mr. Hyde deliciously villainous and monstrous. Also the other actors play fine. Rose Hobart perhaps goes a bit too over-the-top but Miriam Hopkins on the other hand was great.

Of course the make up effects and camera tricks are extremely outdated by todays standard but they are at least not as laughable as you would expect. Especially the make up for Mr. Hyde looks quite good.

I also was surprised by this movie its sexual tension and references. Miriam Hopkins shows quite some skin and does some daring things. Overall the sequences with Hyde and Ivy, the name of the Mirian Hopkins character, are dripping with sexual tension. Quite amazing for an 1931 movie and it came quite unexpected for me. But it makes the movie all the more refreshing and original. "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is far from your standard '30's monster movie.

Normally '30's pictures end quite abruptly without a real big-bang and are a sort of a let down. Not "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". It's ending is tense, action filled and even quite spectacular.

It's a very creative and refreshing movie from director Rouben Mamoulian, who directed quite some good movie's in the '30's and '40's but still is a sort of forgotten director. Just like the other 1931 monster movies "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" this is an absolute must-see, that at least is just as good, if not better at certain moments.

10/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Let me just say that I am one of the biggest classic horror fans you'll find anywhere. I collect pictures, figures, models, etc. My family isn't quite sure what to make out of me, thats OK. I'm 44, and today was the first time I saw Fredric March in the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. What a blast !! His performance, in my opinion, can only be compared to Karloff in Frankenstein. The make-up is incredible, and the special effects are superior to most any film of the era. The split screen effect used is far ahead of it's time as far as anything that I can remember seeing.I'm really not much for words, but if you love or even like classic horror, and haven't seen this one, what are you waiting for!!!!!!!

When speaking about horror films from the 30s, almost invariably the conversation moves around Universal Studios and the remarkable movies it released on that decade. However, Universal was not the only studio that released a horror classic, and while 1931 is often remembered as the year of Tod Browning's "Dracula" and James Whale's "Frankenstein", it was also the year of another horror classic that deserves a mention: Rouben Mamoulian's amazing version of Robert Louis Stevenson's "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". titled simply "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", the film was previously adapted with good results in 1920 with the legendary actor John Barrymore as the main character, however, Mamoulian's version is nowadays considered the definitive version of the novel and Paramount's answer to Universal's efforts in the horror genre.

Adapted by Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath, the film successfully translates the theme and mood of the novel although (like the previous silent version) does some changes to the plot. Still, the basic story is the tale of Dr. Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) a successful doctor who is convinced that he can isolate the evil in human's soul. As he drinks a potion he invents for this purpose, he sets free all the evil in his persona becoming Mr. Hyde, a brutish man who exists only to make evil. Now, Dr. Jekyll will have to face the consequences of letting Mr. Hyde out.

From the brilliant opening scene (one of the most amazing uses of subjective camera) the film becomes a captivating experience thanks to the very artistic style that Mamoulian gives to the film. A former Broadway director, Mamoulian responds to Universal's famous expressionist art direction with a brave and intelligent use of the camera. It's amazing that in this his third film Mamoulian already shows a domain of this new language, leaving an influential work still relevant to this day. The way the film is edited is also another of Mamoulian's impressive creations, as he plays with the subconscious via transparent merging of images, and a lot of sexual imagery (a bold move even for a pre-Hays code film).

Hoffenstein and Heath's adaptation of the story has now become the best remembered version of the novel, mainly because it translates remarkably well the story from paper (written from the point of view of one of Jekyll's friends) to visuals (making Jekyll the lead) with better results than the 1920s version. Just as brave as Mamoulian's bold use of sexual imagery is the sexual innuendo that fills the script, and is also one of the films that are not only horrific in imagery, but also in words. Hyde's words have a powerful psychological impact that more than 70 years later still give the chills when pronounced by March.

And this takes us to Fredric March's performance as both Jekyll & Hyde. While it's certainly difficult to beat the legendary Barrymore, March really succeeds in making an equally impressive performance by making his own interpretation of the character (his Hyde seems less sinister, but considerably more aggressive, primal and brutal), giving the final touch to Mamoulian's outstanding version of the novel. Another highlight is Miriam Hopkins' performance as Ivy Pearson, a prostitute that becomes the focus of Hyde's most violent actions. Hopkins really transmits the fear that this man creates and in a frighteningly believable performance becomes our eyes in the chaos. Rose Hobart and Holmes Herbert complete the cast, but none reach the high levels of perfection that both March and Hopkins achieve.

Being a fan of the silent version with Barrymore I was expecting a very disappointing film, so my surprise was huge at discovering that not only this film equals the first one in terms of acting, it's an overall superior film in many other aspects. Mamoulian's film is a jewel on the level of the more famous Universal's films, and possibly outshines them too as it's a proof that with inventive and creativity one can create a great film despite the low-budget. The 1931 version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" really lives up to the hype of being "the definitive version" of R.L. Stevenson's famed novel.

It's sad that Mamoulian was literally fired from the movie industry in the 60s, after being one of the most inventive (although less prolific) directors. Still, his knowledge as Broadway director and his enormous creativity played an important role in the films he directed, and "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is probably among the top 5 of his career. 10/10. Definitely a must-see.

Yes, it creaks a bit here and there and has sometimes the look more of a silent film, but this is an easy talkie and a pre-code one at that. In fact there is much innovation here with audacious camera work and bold wipes from one scene to another. It is some time since I last saw this but it still retains its power. And its vigour! I was surprised all over again at the near nakedness of Miriam Hopkins in her scenes of seduction - that is seduction by her of all things. Later she will suffer as her resonating call to return echoes in the mind of Jekyll/Hyde. There is much talk at first of the true nature of man, the seeming duality of the noble and the base and the social hypocrisies and if in the end it becomes a little more farcical it still retains its power. It will be many years until the issues of sex and violence are so vividly portrayed or explored and this version of the book, albeit more based upon an early stage play will forever remain an essential cinema classic.

Fredric March shines in this early screen version of the enduring Robert Louis Stevenson story which explores the duality in all of us. Dr. Henry Jekyll (March) is a scientist advancing such an idea which doesn't sit well with his peers. Naturally, when he dares to pursue such heretical fancies he will pay a price: his Mr. Hyde is an ugly brute who completely gives in to all of mans' basest impulses, and this gets him in deeper and deeper trouble. When watching this adaptation, one can hardly fail to notice the style and innovation brought to the camera work, the editing, and the scene transitions, as we get an early version of what's come to be known as split screen. The film even begins with what we know as the subjective camera technique where we see things from a characters' perspective, in this case Dr. Jekyll, and it's at least a couple of minutes before we switch to an objective view. The Expressionist cinematography was done by Karl Struss. The way that the transformation scenes are done would be revisited in such later films as "The Wolf Man", and the convincing makeup is done by Wally Westmore, an under-rated and overlooked makeup effects man from this period whose work can also be seen in "Island of Lost Souls". Director Rouben Mamoulian and the screenwriters, Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath, are able to inject their material with a ripe amount of sex, as this was done in the pre-Code days. Musical performer and actress Miriam Hopkins shows quite a bit of leg, for one thing. And in scenes where she must contend with the beastly Hyde, there's an undeniable amount of uncomfortable sexual tension. The actors are all superb, and it's very noteworthy that March should have won a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance(s) as it's not that often the Academy acknowledges horror films for this aspect. March is believable every step of the way; when he's Jekyll you can't help but like him, when he's Hyde he just creeps you out. Hopkins is equal parts touching and saucy, and Rose Hobart is appealing as Jekylls' bride to be Muriel. Holmes Herbert, Halliwell Hobbes, Edgar Norton, and Tempe Pigott comprise the rest of the solid supporting players. With all of this going for it, the '31 production of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is worthy viewing for fans of the classic black & white horror films who want to discover the kinds of things that filmmakers could get away with before the Code started stifling their creative efforts. This story has of course been done many times since, but this would be the ideal adaptation with which to start. It's available on a flipper disc from Warner Bros. that pairs it with the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy, so one can have an interesting time comparing the two films. Seven out of 10.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde is a wonderful split personality tale from Robert Louis Stevenson, and out of all the film versions I have seen, this is the most stylish, exciting and somewhat erotic. For one thing the direction is efficient, and the screenplay is intelligent and sophisticated. Also really impressive are the stylish cinematography and the completely convincing make up.

But the acting was what really drove it; Fredric March, what can I say? Absolutely outstanding, thoroughly deserving of the Oscar, he was great as the good hearted yet ambitious physician Dr Jekyll especially in the truly touching moment where he breaks down in front of Muriel, but he is even more impressive as the animalistic Mr Hyde with the help of the very impressive single take transformation scenes. Miriam Hopkins is a smouldering Ivy, at first she is all fun and lovable, then towards the end she is close to heart breaking. Her chemistry with March is simply great. Rose Hobart is fine as Muriel, perhaps she could have done with a little more screen time, but she did very well with what she had. As Dr Lanyon and Poole, Holmes Herbert and Edgar Norton are excellent.

Overall, a brilliant film, that is stylish and exciting. Personally, and I may be alone here, but I was disappointed in the remake, by all means it is worth watching, but I found it inferior to this film because I thought it wasn't as well made and as well acted. Anyway that is a different story. 10/10 Bethany Cox

This take on the classic Robert Louis Stevenson story is classic in its own right, and works on many levels. There's the obvious psychological component to the story, with Jekyll representing the ego/superego, and Hyde the id. We also have the theme of the scientist tampering with nature with an altruistic goal, in this case to rid the psyche of the bad side, become 'super-good', and achieve more, but with a disastrous result that quickly gets out of his hands. But perhaps most importantly, we have the sheer horror of a man unchecked by morality, who is 'free' from constraint, and who promptly rapes, brutalizes, and murders before running off into the foggy London night. He's not an unthinking animal, however – he has all of his cognitive abilities, speaks, and uses logic to elude capture – and this, combined with film sequences that are shot from Jekyll/Hyde's perspective, amplify the fact that this villain is within us all, which is the greatest horror of all.

As an aside: isn't it interesting that while Dr. Jekyll clearly contains the two sides of man, the good and the evil, the female characters in the film seem to be neatly one-dimensional: Muriel (his fiancée, 'good'), and Ivy (the dancehall girl, 'bad'). And that after he's taken the potion, he gets darker in addition to becoming uglier and needing some serious orthodontia? But I digress. Frederic March is fantastic as Jekyll and Hyde, and won an Oscar for his performance. He plays the lecher without mercy, and leaps around during some exciting chase sequences. The scene where he shows up in Ivy's mirror after she's been assured by Dr. Jekyll that he's gone for good is frightening. Dr. Jekyll thought he could make that promise before he realized that not taking the potion was no longer sufficient to stop the transformation to Mr. Hyde, and that mere impure thought could now bring it about. It's hard to put the lid back on once Pandora's Box has been opened.

Miriam Hopkins shows nice range as Ivy, first absolutely sizzling in a scene where she tries to seduce Dr. Jekyll, a scene ending with her swinging her bare leg from a bed, giving him a serious ravage-me look, responding to his saying he can't return playfully with "oh yes you can", and imploring him to "Come back soon, won't you?....Soon...Come back." Yowza. Later, she's suitably horrified by Mr. Hyde, who does have his way with her, and abuses her without mercy. (she only shows the whip marks to Jekyll, we neither see this happening or the marks themselves … but it's enough to make us shiver) That dangling leg is left superimposed on the screen for some time while Dr. Jekyll walks off with a colleague, exclaiming ""Can a man dying of thirst forget water? Do you know what would happen to that thirst if it were denied water?" His marriage to Muriel has been delayed at her father's request; the suggestion is he's sexually frustrated, and after taking the potion, he makes a beeline back to see Ivy.

Aside from special effects that are outstanding for the time period, and which hold up well today (particularly the first transformation), the film adds some other nice touches. Dr. Jekyll's organ playing is brief but adds a manic and morbid tone, as the film cuts to a candelabra, a statue, a bust, and a tight shot of his servant's face in succession. At one point, Dr. Jekyll is in the park, hears birdsong, and quotes Keats' 'Ode to a Nightingale' ("thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird! No hungry generations tread thee down…") … before seeing a cat advancing along the branch to silence that song. Later, as Hyde strangles Ivy, they slump behind a bed, revealing in the background a replica of Canova's 'Psyche Revived by Cupid's Kiss' which director Rouben Mamoulian leaves us with until Hyde gets back up.

The movie has some pretty dark content, but it's asking questions about man's nature, and this version is balanced and moves along well. Definitely a classic.

Unfortunately, NONE of the Dr. Jekyll movies I have seen do justice to the original novel by Robert Lewis Stevenson. The biggest problem with any of the movies is that in the original book, the reader had no idea that Jekyll and Hyde were the same person until the end of the story (they were much more physically different than in the movies--Hyde was significantly shorter). This mystery-suspense element is missing from all the movies and probably can't be done anyway, since so many people are familiar with the plot. It's really too bad, as this really made the book so wonderful.

I have seen several versions of the Dr. Jekyll movies--even the pretty obscure television version with Jack Palance. This Frederic March film is definitely unique, though, because it was made "Pre-Code" and as such is a much more sexual movie--and this makes it better in some ways than the other Jekyll movies because the doctor's motivation for his experiments take on an added dimension. The film is all about the dangers of sexual repression, as the good doctor is very, very sexually frustrated. It seems he is ready to marry his lovely fiancée NOW, but her stuffy and asexual father won't allow them to marry until a suitable period has elapsed (10 months)! When Jekyll's friends and butler suggest he "go out and have a good time", he truly can't, as in his day a gentleman's reputation was super-important. As a result, he creates the Hyde persona so he can sleep around and not face public ridicule!! This is so, so different from other Hyde films and is sort of like a combination of the classic tale with Freudian views of repression and sex! As far as the rest of the film goes, it is very competently acted and directed except for one minor problem. Towards the end, the film seems a little too melodramatic when Jekyll breaks off his engagement to his fiancée--they just "laid it on a little too thick". Otherwise, an interesting and compelling psychological portrait about sexual repression.

FYI--Oddly, Jekyll's name is pronounced "Gee-Kil" throughout the film. It seems the more traditional "Jek-il" that we are more familiar with was popularized in the Spencer Tracy version of 1941.

PS--About a week after seeing this film I also saw the 1941 version again for the second time. Overall, the 1931 film is definitely better because it takes more risks and because the 1941 film seems like an almost direct copy at times.

I recently picked up a DVD with both copies of Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde one starring Frederic March from 1931 and the latter with Spencer Tracy in 1941. What I found interesting is how great the special effects were as Jekyll transformed into Hyde. It was amazing considering that it was 1931. Miriam Hopkins was vivacious and appealed nicely to the dark sexual side of Hyde. This version gave a fleeting glimpse of skin that would not be seen post code. But that is not the appeal the real attraction is March who is stellar in his portrayal of both characters. The pennance Jekyll does as he laments his murder makes for a neat ending and his transformation as he dies back to the good doctor.

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.

I feel weird for having seen so many versions of this story but not really being much of a fan of it. This I think was the best version ever and one of the best of these old horror movies I have ever seen. We even get great stuff in the beginning. We see everything taken from the point of view from Dr. Jekyll. We only get to see this one other time in the movie, though. What really makes the film is Mr. Hyde. I have never seen any more intimidating version of him. I especially love when they show close ups with how monstrous he is. Those are seriously some of the scariest looking teeth I've ever seen.

What's also great about this movie is how intense it can get. There are really some scary scenes that hold up pretty well. I never even thought of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as being used in the old Universal Hammer films. Well, they fit the criteria! It's funny how the original book was made by a guy who shares my last name. I totally feel for all of these wonderful characters. Maybe it helps that I recently just saw "The Nutty Professor". I guess it's just a story that's been told many times over.

The length of the movie is perfect. A lot of stuff at this time seemed to be too long or short. I'm so glad we set up the tension perfectly. Okay, I guess the transition effects aren't that good, but this is still a very nice movie. While not as good as "Noseferatu", it's certainly a classic any fan should watch. It's great to see the best version of a story that's been retold so many times. ***1/2