I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Powerful

Just what I expected

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Nowadays it is extremely fashionable for critics to praise Mamoulian's version at the expense of Fleming's. After all, Mamoulian has a much higher status as an auteur than Fleming. Why? Fleming died in 1947 whereas Mamoulian was attending retrospectives and giving interviews well into the 1970s. Furthermore, his comparatively small body of work — 16 films over a 28-year period — makes the job of researching so much easier, leading to a proliferation of articles, theses and career studies. In addition, the 1931 version has attained a cult status due its purchase and subsequent suppression by MGM. (And no wonder they hid it away. Although Mahin receives sole screen credit, not only the adaptation — with its introduction of the Ivy character who is not present in Stevenson's line-up — but many of the scenes themselves are a direct steal.Despite the similarities, Mamoulian's is really a somewhat different film, looking at Hyde from a less moralistic angle. His direction is much more showy than Fleming's with its imaginative first-person camera and ingenious slow wipes. Both films have the benefit of no- expense-spared period sets and marvelously atmospheric photography.March's Hyde with its grotesque make-up and spell-binding special effects is one of the highlights of 30s cinema. The actor won an Academy Award for his performance, but deserved it more for his projection of the incarnately evil Hyde than his portrayal of the somewhat simpering Jekyll. Tracy's Hyde has an equally fascinating malevolence, but his Jekyll is much more forthright and believable. And despite the technical brilliance of March's transformation (compared to the obvious if increasingly skilled use of superimposition for Tracy's), the climactic scenes in the Fleming film are more effectively handled and set. (The climax starts about three-quarters of the way through when the transformation unexpectedly takes place of its own accord. Hyde suddenly becomes the dominant personality, taking refuge in Jekyll primarily to escape detection. The Mamoulian climax starts with Jekyll sitting on a park bench, listening to a nightingale and quoting Keats while a black cat stealthily advances on her prey — an effective metaphor, but Fleming's is even more vivid: Tracy goes whistling off in the fog to his engagement party. He disappears into the mist. The whistling continues jauntily, hesitates and stops. Cut to a close-up of Tracy, slightly bewildered. He starts off again, once more sauntering gaily into the fog, but this time he is whistling not the Lana Turner theme but "See Me Dance the Polka".) Not only is Tracy more than a fair match for March, but producer Fleming has surrounded him with an absolutely first-rate support cast. Ingrid Bergman's remarkably luminous yet sexually provocative performance (this was her 4th American film, following Intermezzo, Adam Had Four Sons and Rage In Heaven. Her next film was Casablanca) far outshines Miriam Hopkins'. Of course, we expect a skilfully charming performance from Ingrid. What is even more of a surprise is the appealing conviction Lana Turner brings to the heroine. (Oddly enough the roles were originally reversed, but Bergman persuaded Fleming to let her try her hand at a "bad girl".)Ian Hunter is perfectly cast as the stolid Lanyon (yet so much more personable than Holmes Herbert in the Mamoulian version), while Peter Godfrey brings a lively yet sensitive spirit to Poole. Donald Crisp purrs his usual warm authority into Sir Charles and there are some delightfully animated character cameos from both upper (Lawrence Grant's indignant Dr Courtland, Aubrey Smith's smooth- tongued bishop) and lower (Billy Bevan's talkative park attendant, Alec Craig's inflexible waiter, Forrester Harvey's mendacious manager) classes. While not as showy as Mamoulian's, Victor Fleming's direction is equally as sophisticated, using a great variety of effective camera angles and dramatic compositions, allied with a superb sense of atmosphere and a masterful knowledge of pace and movement. Right from its opening credits to its fade-out 127 minutes later, the narrative grips like the proverbial vice, no matter how familiar you are with the story or how many times you've seen the film before. The credit for this mounting excitement and suspense must be shared with the players, the writers, and the other technicians. Tracy never gave a more electrifying performance. His Hyde is achieved with comparatively little make-up (compared to March's), the menace conveyed primarily through a change in voice and demeanor. Mahin has supplied him with some fascinatingly malicious dialogue. Even when stealing scenes direct from Heath and Hoffenstein, he usually improves them. For example, Tracy's famous line, "Even as Hyde I warned you", is missing from Mamoulian, leaving March's motive in warning Lanyon completely unexplained.(As noted above, both scripts have been considerably fleshed out from Stevenson's original novel, while retaining much of its flavor and many of its ideas — principally that Jekyll's vice is from the very first a deliberate assent — rare themes indeed for Hollywood, especially i

The novella THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE by Robert Louis Stevenson has become of a classic of horror literature. As a result, it has become fertile territory for Hollywood to mine this book again and again as numerous versions have been filmed, while still dozens of other films borrow heavily from its' themes and central premise. Most in the critical community, though, would agree that this is the best version of the Jekyll and Hyde story and I would wholeheartedly agree.The film is shocking for its' time in history, before the censorship codes would prevent Hollywood from making movies like this for decades to come. Still, even when compared to other pre-code horror, this movie attempts to go places that no other horror film does in terms of its' raw portrayals of sexual aggression. Dr. Jekyll is, after all, a good man. A scientist of some intellect, we meet him as he's on his way to speak to a crowd which has gathered to hear his ideas. The lecture he gives is of the possibly of splitting man in two. While many in the audience have a laugh at him as they take him literally, Jekyll is speaking not of a physical splitting, but of a splitting of personality. The story doesn't need much more exposition than that, as we all know the tale by now. Eventually, Jekyll succeeds in his experiment to disastrous results, as he unleashes the beast within himself.That's where this version succeeds so triumphantly. Where other versions from this era, including the Spencer Tracy version a decade later, hint at the sexual repression, this movie makes it the central focus. Jekyll is obviously struggling with the morals of his society, as well as an overbearing future father-in-law, as those forces conspire to keep him from wedding his love and, thus, from releasing his sexual frustration. When he splits Mr. Hyde from his personality, Hyde becomes a primal force of sexual aggression, doing all of the things that Jekyll cannot. Hyde goes straight to a prostitute that Jekyll could only innocently flirt with and takes it to places Jekyll could never go. Initially, he "keeps" her in luxury to win her favors, but the evil in Hyde begins to torment and abuse the woman. Eventually, Jekyll loses control and Hyde begins to destroy his life in more ways that one.Fredrich March won an Oscar for his role and it is well deserved. He brilliantly pulls off both sides of this man. He is charming, intelligent and loving as Dr. Jekyll, as much as he is crude, evil and deviant as Mr. Hyde. One might believe they were two different actors, he puts that much effort into wildly disparate personalities. March's physical acting as Hyde is excellent, as well. He takes on an almost simian nature, as he regresses to an earlier evolution, free of society's morals, but also of it's refinement.The makeup goes a long way to portray this, as well. They give March the look of a Neanderthal, complete with animalistic teeth. A big part of that makeup is the transformation scenes, which are very well done for the time, a decade before Universal tried anything similar in THE WOLFMAN, March undergoes a gradual progression from man to animal through some excellent camera-work. While we are on that subject, the camera framing by Mamoulian is spot on in helping to lend weight to this movie. The POV shots that he continually explores help the viewer put themselves more firmly into the shoes of Jekyll. We, often, see things in this movie from his perspective, so the audience is all the more invested in Jekyll as his life falls apart under the influence of the evil Hyde.Universal was the king of horror in the 30s, but could easily stand amongst those horror classics and gives us another outstanding movie villain from the golden age of the horror film.

(Halloween Horror Reviews #17)It is hard to believe that such a refined and dynamic film as this came out of this early period in horror. The harsh emotions, the creepy imagery and sets, all massively ahead of their time. The themes and ideas of the novel remain respectfully intact here, nowhere near as diluted as they would have been expected to be.Fredric March is truly incredible as both Jekyll and Hyde. The emotional range is stellar, the physical investment from the actor is truly admirable and quite spectacular. Miriam Hopkins also offers a chilling performance in her role, captivating the audience with her simple yet effective displays of fear and bewilderment. Between these two actors, the film becomes a powerhouse of great early sound acting and a real marvel to watch 82 years later. The supporting actors also do a fine job, but are ultimately overlooked and passed over by the main stars.The set design and lighting are both also stellar, perhaps some of the best examples of such things from the early sound era of horror. The lamp lit streets, the chaotic laboratory and the jolly pub, these are all great sets and give the film a vibrant charm of its own.In conclusion, this is a near perfect film and an outstanding accompaniment to the classics of Universal. A sadly often overlooked gem here.

One of the creepiest older sci-fi horror films ever made. Fredric March's performance as Jekyll/Hyde was superb. This is one of those films where most of the horror is subtle - the idea of this looking hideous man-creature Mr. Hyde on the loose.The story is, in it's way, similar to 'The Invisible Man' and 'Frankenstein' because we have a scientist that is considered to be insane for creating monsters yet their intentions started out good.Dr. Jekyll's beliefs in the good man vs the evil man lead him to experiment with the concept. By doing so, he created the strong, primitive Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll represents the brain and the good side of man while Mr. Hyde represents the brawn and the evil.I love these older horror films - they are still some of the best, most creative movies ever made.10/10