The fact that it's a transitional sound pictures shows in two areas, the occasionally stiff dialogue delivery and recurring frontal reaction shots that linger and feel out of place. Outside of that the acting is very good and the story is quite effectively told, with a mix of humour and horror. The special effects hold up really well and make the transformation seem genuine.

Pre-Halloween camera, eroticism, realistic Hyde portrayal; all creates the most successful film adaptation. by the way, Hopkins is an underrated actress of the Golden Era who played in Lubitsch movies like Trouble in Paradise and Design for Living and many more (The Story of Temple Drake, The Children's Hour) very well.

There is a lot thats impressive about this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde production. The effects, the wonderful camera work and so on. The acting has got to be taken for what it is. A very deliberate stage styled performance which kind of takes some away from the feeling of cinematic drama. And it doesn't help that the Hyde character looks more comical then frightening. However this a very elegant display and a really fine movie regardless.

The classic "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" film. Frederich March is so much fun to watch.

solid acting by fredric march and fantastic special effects for the time make this a horror classic

only marginally better than the 40's remake with tracy. i did appreciate the title characters a bit more in this version, but it's still a far cry from the classic it's made out to be.

As you’d expect, this film adaptation isn’t as good and fairly different from the book. Some of the acting and dialogue wasn’t the best, but I was really impressed with some of the shots. In particular, there were several shots from a first-person perspective that were really clever. Overall, it wasn’t perfect, but very watchable.

Interesting; March does a great job.

it's faithful to the subject and even manages to improve it thematically. it has quite a remarkable craftsmanship for its time. it's a good adaptation.

Worth seeing because of March.

Dr. Jeekyl? I've enver heard it pronounced that way before. I'd like to live in the good doctor's house, but the rest of the movie I could do without, actually. I never did see the fascination in this movie.

What an awsome version of the movie! Frederick March and whoever played Hyde were brilliant! One of the greatest strories ever made into movies and they how hyde was being transformed is always an interesting site to behold no matter what version you watch. A great classic movie to watch!

Decent, but it didn't compel me very much. Good acting. Otherwise, not so memorable.

81.750

I can't imagine a better adaptation of the story.

Hokey transition-period direction, starting with the well-nigh unbearable POV opening sequence (5 minutes of tunnel vision). Then there were the segues: extreme slow dissolves and goofy half-wipes (looked like the windshield blade had gotten stuck). Still, once March really Hydes out it does get pretty good, even if his teeth don't fit. We do see a lot of Hopkins (ah...the good old pre-code era). Btw what's with this "Jeekle" business?--and the phrase "with all my heart" seemed to crop up a lot.

March's double performance is the real reason to watch this.

The POV intro completely blew me away, and maybe raised my expectations of what was to come a bit too high. March succeeds in creating both a sympathetic character in Jekyll and an amusing (but maybe too goofy looking) villain when he goes into Hyde-mode. Some amazing special effects and interesting split-screen use, though it all plays out rather simple.

This story gets filmed constantly, but despite its age this is the best version yet. Rouben Mamoulian's directing is way ahead of its time

From a technical point of view there's a something to enjoy here, including the beginning, which is filmed as, erhm, point of view. The make-up effects used when transforming Jekyll into Hyde are also something to behold. The atrocities of Hyde have faded somewhat in comparison to your average 'Serbian film', and thus the impact of the tragedy is lessened. It's worth a watch, if you can accept, let alone ignore, that it seems to be an allegory for how alcohol is bad for you.

March is both over-the-top ridiculous, but eerily awesome as the hyper-libido Hyde. The special effects are incredibly impressive.

I was wondering why the need for all these first-person perspective shots and then the transformation scene came up and it all made sense. The most effective horror piece of Old Hollywood; works as both an article of the former era and a clear sign of the skill that sound films will progress into. Fredric March may give a performance of note, but the character of Jekylll takes a turn for the melodramatic toward the end -- what a letdown.

Thematically complex, cinematically adventurous, and generally intense adaptation. A fresh air of honest sexuality and candor pervades this pre-Code production. March, who copped an Oscar for his schizoid work, is excellent as Jekyll and Hyde; as the latter, outsized dentures force him to talk like Humphrey Bogart while his unharnessed id prompts antisocial behavior worthy of Al Pacino's Tony Montana. Hopkins projects raunchy vulnerability as Ivy, the hooker with a heart of champagne.

Fast-paced, well-written, and impressively edited, Mamoulian's feature highlights the internal struggle of the doctor while at the same time bringing out the physicality of the Hyde character. March offers a fine performance, both in and out of makeup, and the film gains momentum as it moves along, ending in a furious and nicely shot chase sequence and finale. Mamoulian also shows off his chops with the camera, with several impressive sequences that feature lengthy tracking shots.

Probably the best adaptation to date.

Fredric March, as Jekyll/Hyde, impress with some crazy body gestures, and positive echoes from the expressionistic film prevail in certain scenes of lustful play with cinematography and mise-en-scène. But this is tame as a whole, and the embarrassing, importunate moralizing near the end meets apathetic ears and tired eyes.

ger

The early special effects are really impressive for the time. Also interesting to see what Hollywood could get away with pre-Hays Code. However...why does Mr. Hyde suddenly adopt a foreign accent? That's got some unfortunate implications.

Still kinda creepy after all these years. It shows its age--particularly March's Hyde--but if you give it a chance, it can still work its spell on you. Oh, and the Hyde in me agrees: Miriam Hopkins has very nice legs.

Great cinematography, great acting, and thoroughly complex. What more do you want from a horror movie? The opening POV shot is brilliant.

March's Oscar-winning performance is the highlight of this terrific horror film, which is also the best of the many versions of Stevenson's classic tale of good and evil. The direction is exquisite.

The definite film version of the classic tale. A milestone of acting, directing, special effects and cinematography- damn near perfect in every sense. Most awesome.