|
|
List Price: $14.98Amazon.com's Price: $10.49 You Save: $4.49 (30%)Prices subject to change.
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Buy Now!
Aspect Ratio: 1.33:1
Audience Rating: Unrated
Binding: DVD
EAN: 0012569585928
Format: Color, DVD-Video, Subtitled, NTSC
Label: Warner Home Video
Manufacturer: Warner Home Video
Number Of Items: 1
Publisher: Warner Home Video
Region Code: 1
Release Date: January 06, 2004
Running Time: 209 minutes
Sales Rank: 8412
Studio: Warner Home Video
Theatrical Release Date: December 31, 1931
Editorial Review:
Amazon.com:
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
Fredric March won an Oscar® for playing the protagonist (and antagonist) of Robert Louis Stevenson's story. Dr. Henry Jekyll is an honorable man of science, albeit frustrated at the enforced celibacy of a delayed wedding date. Hyde is the fearsome creature he turns into after drinking a potion, and Hyde's appetites (mostly expressed with Miriam Hopkins's Cockney dance-hall wench) are decidedly unrestrained. March's performance is pretty theatrical, but it's fun to watch; his Hyde twitches and squawks and lopes around like an ape in a tuxedo. Rouben Mamoulian's direction has plenty of the brio of early-thirties Hollywood, and the transformations from Jekyll to Hyde are ingenious for the time. This film followed Dracula and Frankenstein into theaters by a few months, and it stands well with those horror classics--and it's a darn sight more fun (and much more down and dirty) than the 1941 MGM version of Stevenson's tale. --Robert Horton
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1941)
Classy MGM was not the studio most likely to make a horror movie in 1941, and in fact its production of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ended up looking more like a glossy costume drama than a B-movie frightfest. The mood of Robert Louis Stevenson's tale of a divided doctor is ably captured in Joseph Ruttenberg's Oscar-nominated cinematography--more so, perhaps, than in Spencer Tracy's lead performance. Tracy wasn't especially happy about playing the role, although his transformations from good Dr. Jekyll to evil Dr. Hyde are convincing enough. One of the main reasons to see this version of the story is the young, impossibly beautiful Ingrid Bergman, then still a year shy of Casablanca. Bergman was cast in the good-girl part, but proved a shrewd judge of material, even this early in her Hollywood career; she finagled her way into playing the floozy instead, thus securing a more colorful acting platform than Lana Turner, who ended up in the more respectable role. Director Victor Fleming's previous movie was a little number called Gone with the Wind, and the Big Picture approach to that project may have influenced his work here--this Dr. Jekyll is just a bit too stately, too polished to really engage. The picture is so dignified it never cuts loose with the kind of wild invention that marked the 1932 version of the story, which won Fredric March an Oscar. It's the tale as imagined by Jekyll, rather than Hyde. --Robert Horton
Customer Reviews
Average Rating: 
Rating:  - Good for English class
I teach English 1 to high school freshman. After letting three classes view both the 1932 and the 1941 version, the kids overwelmingly agreed the 1932 version was better. They couldn't really see a difference in appearance between Jekyll and Hyde in the 1941 version. And, being able to really see when the doctor was Jekyll and when he was Hyde helped them "get" the story better. The 1941 version also moves a bit more slowly.
There is also a Bugs Bunny short "Hyde and Hare" that my kids really ... Read More
Rating: - Two for one - excellent viewing
This DVD gives a worthwhile opportunity to the viewer to compare the 1932 Paramount version of the famous story with the more controversial 1941 MGM version. Both are excellent in their way. When the later film was made, MGM purchased the earlier version and promptly buried it. It is surprising how close the scripts of the 2 films are for they offer quite different interpretations: in the early version, Hyde's motivation is definitely sexual but in the later version, it is more psychological.
... Read More
Rating:  - SPENCER TRACEY AND INGRID B. ACADEMY AWARD PERFORMANCES!!
IVE BEEN A HORROR FAN PERSON FOR AWHILE,WATCHING THE MOVIE EFFECTS FROM NOW AND THEN ,THERE HAS BEEN SO MANY CHANGES,THIS MOVIE WITH SPENCER AND INGRID DISPLAYS WHAT A GOOD WHOLESOME ENJOYABLE MOVIE IS ALL ABOUT.. SPENCER MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PROUD ABOUT THE PART HIMSELF,BUT HE AND INGRID WERE CONVINCINGLY OUTSTANDING,THE PART WAS EXCELLENT,SUPERB,THE EFFECTS WERE SO NATURALLY,THE ACTING SO MARVELOUS,THERE IS NOTHING LIKE CURLING UP WITH MATERIAL YOU CANT PRY YOURSELF AWAY FROM,AND THESE 2 REALLY SHINE,MOVIES ... Read More
Rating: - dr jekyll and mister hyde
i thought the 1932 version had more depth to the hyde character than the tracy version but would not state that either was not worth viewing. i think getting these 2 fairly hard to find titles at such a great low price,make this disk a must have. and dont forget the bugs bunny as dr jekyll/ hyde bonus!!!
Rating: - The two Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde versions
Both 1932 and 1941 versions of this oft-told classic make for worthwhile viewing, with my own preference the earlier pre-Code entry starring Fredric March. It's the more frightening of the two, with stark, expressionist sets and ghoulish Hyde make-up accentuating Jekyll's turn from good to evil. The second entry has a gorgeous MGM gloss, and assured direction by Victor Fleming. It also has Spencer Tracy, a fabulous actor whose Hyde is a subtler rendition, a man with a heavier brow and leering expression, whose ... Read More
|
|
