Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

ildimo-35223 Less a horror film than a morality fable (you can choose evil but then you cannot choose good again), this entry of Stevenson's story is sublime. Supremely endowed by Mamoulian's directorial prowess and effective proclivity to innovation, the film towers above its own dated restrictions freeing itself to an aesthetic highland where even pose and verbose dialogue cannot hinder its virtues.March is neurotically fierce as Jekyll and grotesquely fearsome as the Neanderthalian Hyde, Hopkins does her usual superlative work and, above all, Mamoulian brings it home thundering his well-honed, yet experimental, mastery (pov narration, split screen imagery, pioneering use of sound, camera movement, editing pace, visual effects, you name it..). A master('s)work.

BA_Harrison Paramount gives Universal a run for their money with this excellent adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.Fredric March stars as well-meaning Dr. Henry Jekyll, who is convinced that a person's soul consists of two halves, the good self and the bad self, and that mankind would benefit if he could banish the bad and liberate the good. In his laboratory, Jekyll perfects a potion that will separate the two sides of his personality and uses himself as a guinea pig. The formula allows Jekyll's repressed bad self to take control and, as his new alter ego Mr. Hyde, the doctor enjoys the forbidden fruits of old London town.If only Dr. Jekyll wasn't so sexually frustrated, things might have turned out differently. Engaged to be married to the lovely Muriel Carew (Rose Hobart), but made to wait for months on end by his future father-in-law Brig. Gen. Danvers Carew (Halliwell Hobbes), Jekyll has a serious case of blue balls; it is this that causes Hyde to come to the fore. As his monstrous bad self, free of all morality and decency, he is able to indulge in every animalistic whim, taking a mistress, variety hall girl Ivy Pearson (Miriam Hopkins), and treating her like a sex slave.Of course, none of this is any good for Jekyll's relationship with Muriel, especially with Hyde eventually being able to take control without the need for the potion.Not only does Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde boast an Oscar winning performance from Fredric March, it also benefits immensely from outstanding direction from Rouben Mamoulian, whose innovative film-making approach makes the film a marvel to behold. Opening with a wonderful extended POV shot as Jekyll plays the organ and prepares to give a lecture, Mamoulian executes a variety of ground-breaking techniques (the mirror trick is still impressive, even to this day) and makes effective use of his atmospheric foggy London sets. Made in Pre-Code Hollywood, the film also packs in quite a bit of racy material, Ivy stripping to get ready for bed (Hopkins giving a brief flash of side-boob) and Hyde promising the poor, terrified girl a night to remember.An excessively mawkish scene in which Jekyll eventually confronts Muriel, telling her that he must set her free, probably would have aged better if the melodrama had been toned down a bit, but other than that the film is simply terrific—up there with Frankenstein and The Invisible Man as one of the greatest classics of the era, and of the genre as a whole.8.5 out of 10, rounded up to 9 for IMDb.

Artur Machado Very avant-gard. A stunningly innovative camera work by director Rouben Mamoulian, very realistic make-up, an Oscar for best actor for Fredric March who is so kind and benevolent as Jekyll and then suddenly so devilish as Hyde; other performances are also excellent. And as is customary with this old movies, there are scenes that were cut and hopelessly forever lost that, from what I read, would only elevate even more this great cinematographic work. This is the best cine version of this tale, for sure. Don't miss it.

Irishchatter This is the best 1931 version I have ever seen. The storyline was so well, the camera work was brilliant, you honestly felt like you were the character looking at other characters. Although you do kinds get creeper out by Hyde. I was astonished that rape was involved so early in an old time movie like this. I can understand it's horror but it just was so unexpected and frightening! I really applaud Fredric March for playing two characters throughout the whole movie. It was quite shocking that he was hospitalized after involving in this film. The reason could be the makeup whenever he had to play Hyde since it did report that his face was sort of disfigured. He was such an excellent actor and I'm only discovering him years later lol! This movie definitely deserved an Oscar, why can't Hollywood just leave it alone and not do too many adaptations?! I know it was also adapted in 1920 but still, it's not great to leave this Hollywood gem out of the movie lot!