a list that is trying to contain every horror film made that is not lost and is found on the…
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
It CHILLS you! Half-MAN! Half-MONSTER!
Dr. Jekyll believes good and evil exist in everyone and creates a potion that allows his evil side, Mr. Hyde, to come to the fore. He faces horrible consequences when he lets his dark side run amok.
More costume drama than horror film, Victor Fleming's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is a grand production. Unfortunately, its opulence of production design does not translate into anything truly riveting in terms of narrative; but the film is, nonetheless, engaging.
Fleming's approach to the well-known material is subtle, though the film boasts some surreal touches. His Jekyll, played by Spencer Tracy, is an upstanding scientist with aspirations of settling down with his wealthy bride-to-be. When he tests a potion on himself, he becomes the heavily-browed, boorish Hyde, a man with a taste for the seedier side of life. A pre-transformation Jekyll has a series of strange visions, adding some liveliness to the drama. This surreal taste is limited, and the…
What a brewhaha
I meant to watch the '30s version of this film (which I understand to be superior), but accidentally watched this. Never trust the Internet, kids. (Or, rather, this is my fault for assuming there was only one black and white Jekyll and Hyde with sound).
It's a bit strange that a film would be remade 10 years after a version. Making one from the '30s a decade after the one from the '20s makes sense because cinema changed a lot (a little thing called sound) between those two decades. The '30s and the '40s? Yeah, progression was certainly made, but not as much.
And this film doesn't really do anything all that special. Like many horror films…
On the outset, one might expect a straight-served classic "Monster" horror in the style of the old Universal films. Yet, instead of presenting the "Mr.Hyde" character as a merely literal, independent creature, like a Werewolf, the film depicts the dualist struggle within Dr. Jekyll as a struggle of (wo)mankind' struggle in itself. Carrying the potential to be or become evil in yourself, careful thee, which dare to wake up the beast. Hence, I found Tracy's (and the director's) approach to the role torn between the idea of creating a film that will still make the popcorn fly out of the young 1940's girls laps, but making sure that it steers clear from exploiting the "evil" character for its undisputed talent…
Somewhat dull adaptation of the famous story. Tracy is horribly miscast, and the Mr. Hyde makeup reminds me more of an angry Andy Griffith than an imposing brute.
Still, the movie is beautifully shot, and the bizarre pretransformation montages are a treat. Bergman (in her first dark role) is also fantastic as the initially seductive barmaid who begins to break down as she comes into the clutches of the evil Mr. Hyde.
Spencer Tracy is a little miscast in the titular role(s), but Victor Fleming's focus on the tension within the scenes--not to mention some very good cinematography--do help make this version of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde a tense--if long-winded--horror/thriller. Plus, Ingrid Bergman delivers an absolute powerhouse performance.
Entertaining and great looking version of the Dr. J and Mr. H tale but ultimately undone by it's weighty length and unsatisfying finish. Hard not to love that cast though and Spencer Tracy manipulates his face to the point where it's believable that people don't recognise him as the same person.
Quite erotic subtext for it's time including a trippy scene where Hyde is apparently riding on carriage being pulled by a naked Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman, naked on all fours (assuming they're supposed to be naked - obviously they only show from the shoulders up back in the 40's!).
Tracy is excellent as Hyde, fun to watch and menacing as hell. The scenes where he terrorizes Ingrid Bergman, especially the long "sing for me" sequence, are the stuff of nightmares. But his Jekyll is pretty bland, and the film is missing the Jekyll-Hyde struggle, which is kind of an essential element. The whole movie was clearly built around Tracy and Bergman, and their performances are absolutely worth watching, for what it's worth.
Can only coast so far on its rich cinematography and the occasional flashy trick, but its severely miscast leads and uneven pacing drag things down big time. For every unsettling thing that comes across, Tracy's tics and general out-of-placeness rattle us back off the rails. In the meantime, we have Bergman trying to do something akin to a stage Cockney, but her natural accent comes through so strong that we're just distracted by the attempt. Turner gets very little to do, and her talents are misapplied as the "good girl." And in the end, the plodding, poor pace makes this a generally uninspiring watch, visuals and set design be damned.
Compared to the 1932 classic version of the Robert Louis Stevenson novella, Victor Fleming's version is an unfortunately stilted affair. Spencer Tracy just seems so bored with the material and his Hyde is more likely to elicit laughter than terror. I kind of liked the nightmarish editing during the moments of transformation but overall the film is dated and not really all that compelling. Stick to the Frederich March film.
can never descide which i like better this or the 1931 pre-code version best
This version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde has good performances from Spencer Tracy and Ingrid Bergman, but the storytelling is a bit too pedestrian to make it anything more than decent.
Simply worded: this is a great sci-fi horror film. The character development in this 1941 film is excellent - that keeps the film highly interesting.
Each version of the story has it's own differences in story with the core of the story remaining the same. This 1941 version has a great style - super good story.
What I like about the film is the fact that Mr. Hyde is not "overly done' - he looks like a regular guy yet something different and creepy looking about him -- a realistic take on the Hyde character that is appealing. Yes the 1941 Mr. Hyde is scary.
*The versions: 1920 with Barrymore and 1931 March has Mr. Hyde looking more like a monster than the 1941 with Tracy for a comparison.*
Over all this is a great film for a late night horror - worth watching if you enjoy classic horror.
Underwhelming melodrama without a hint if horror. Spencer Tracy overacts Ingrid Bergman over acts & reacts and the whole thing left me wanting to see a different better version. With that in mind I have taken it upon myself to checkout at the very least the 1931 version as that appears to be the most highly regarded of them all. Now don't get me wrong this isn't a bad movie it's that this is about as such a dramatic horror film as Andrew Lloyd Webber's The Phantom of the Opera. Melodrama all the way.
This Victor Fleming take on Jekyll and Hyde has a lot to recommend it: great cinematography, a genuinely creepy performance by Spencer Tracy, and surrealist, nearly psychedelic representations of Jekyll/Hyde's mental state during his first couple of transformations.
Hyde eventually goes completely berserk, but for the bulk of the movie, he's evil in a chillingly mundane sort of way. The content restrictions of the Hayes era push much of the overt violence against Ingrid Bergman off the screen, leaving behind scenes of emotional abuse more realistic and unsettling than many dramas of the same period that weren't operating under the cover of sci-fi/horror.
The 2016 (2nd) edition of the list. You can see the original and more info here.
With a list of…
Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!