Check
- Mark movie as favorite
- Dislike this movie
- Add movie to watchlist
- Mark movie as owned
- Check movie
- View the official lists that include Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
- Visit IMDb page
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)'s comments
Order by:
- Info
- In lists (417)
- Comments (9)
- Friends
- Activity
- Checks (5138)
- Favorites (206)
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 9 of 9
Siskoid
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde seems like the perfect story for pre-Code Hollywood to make, and in 1931, they did, not omitting its darkly sexual elements. It's even shocking at times. Miriam Hopkins really sells the terror as she becomes the target of Hyde's mental, physical, and yes, sexual abuse. Along with a number of interesting camera work and editing - though I don't think the long POV shots really works - the film uses make-up and lighting to create the transformations (looks amazing) before going full caveman on Fredric March. But March doesn't just let the make-up do the work, he gives Hyde tics and mannerisms all his own. I'm used to werewolf movies trying to allegorize themselves into this space, but this is much more effective and troubling. Hyde is still a man, and Jekyll remembers what he did as his darker self. Remove the pseudo-science element, and you have a man who abuses a common mistress even as he courts an angelic socialite, with the abuser's self-serving remorse that comes with it, but doesn't change the man (as per his failed promise to Hopkins' character). Dark, dark stuff.Prof. Lumpcicle
Miriam Hopkins (so hot) gets the pre-code treatment with cleveage and leg shots galore. I wouldn't want it any other way.JoeMorrissy
Another great horror classic, special effects were great as well. Hard to imagine that this was made over 83 years ago.Matt Addis
Not sure why they insisted on pronouncing it "dr jeekle" but still...great makeup and special effects for the time. Also won Fredric March an Oscarseithscott
Brilliant film, acting and writing and special effects. Fredric March does a hell of a job.Nandinho
This movie is awesome, pretty well done, better than the classic Frankenstein (1931), in my opinion.george4mon
the special effects for the transformations into Hyde were good, but when he changed back they were very bad, and Hyde's mannerisms and appearance were cringe worthy.Dieguito
Cool, just like Bugs BunnyBig A2
This movie is pretty cool, but it's nowhere near as good as Frankenstein.It's very similar to The Wolf Man (1941) though, both in story and special effects.