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.

81.750

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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; one of the few hollywood-produced horrors that are still effective today. Works as both an article of the former era in films 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.

Interesting; March does a great job.

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

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.

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

ger

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.

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.

Worth seeing because of March.

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.

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.

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.

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

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