Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Reviews

Page 1 of 9
Super Reviewer
½ September 5, 2010
One of my favourite horror movies of the 40s. Great cast, classic story, it's exciting, dramatic, and somewhat romantic. I love it.
jjnxn
Super Reviewer
March 31, 2008
Tracy is badly miscast here and it almost fatal hurts the film but the MGM gloss and beauty of both Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner compensate somewhat.
FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
September 5, 2009
Very very nice version of the classic tale.
366weirdmovies
Super Reviewer
½ August 7, 2008
Spencer Tracy assays the schizophrenic Jekyll/Hyde role in this remake of the 1931 hit. A notch below its model, but it does feature the memorable image of Ingrid Bergman's head as a champagne bottle cork.
Super Reviewer
½ February 21, 2008
This has a lot of good things going for it, but feels boring and a step below the 1931 version with Fredric Marsh. Lana Turner is a good supporting player. The character Ingrid Bergman gets to play in this movie was quite different from what I've seen her play before. It was impressive to see her be flirtatious and feminine and then terrified to hysterics. I'm a fan of Spencer Tracy's, but was not impressed by his portrayal of Dr. Jekyll. He didn't grab my attention, or develop the inner turmoil of the man who really has the good and evil together in him. The filmmakers should have made the transformation happen sooner. As Mr. Hyde, Tracy was a shocking surprise! At first he looked the same, I didn't think they put any prosthetics on him. This was definitely a more subtle evil face. But then his acting talent shined as he made Mr. Hyde a very different person than the "good doctor." I was also thrilled to see the bit of parkour or free running. Maybe it was a stunt man and not Tracy, but all the leaping over staircase banisters, gates, railings, and through glass made for some long awaited excitement after all the buttoned up tediousness of proper society.
Super Reviewer
½ October 26, 2015
Watch this OR the previous one. Both are good and there's little difference.
½ October 27, 2015
Long, rather dragged out version that takes a little bit to get interesting, but when it does it's quite a ride. The performances outweigh every other aspect, though the make up and effects are fine too. Nice suspenseful moments and a grim ending.
September 6, 2013
Lame. Spencer Tracy is completely out of place in the title roles. Turner is boring. Bergman is excellent but TOTALLY miscast as a Cockney barmaid (!). The best version of this story yet committed to film is Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 take starring Fredric March.
February 16, 2013
A film that is underrated just because of many things but it is a good film on its own. The film had to do with what it had to do considering it was a part of the ratings system that was in place during those times. The 1931 version did not have a good rating system so thats why it could do what it wanted to do but this is good as well. Spencer Tracy did a good job as both Jekyll and Hyde, but to be honest Hyde was a more crazy lunatic and thats not what I think Hyde would be. Other than that consider this as its own movie and you will be surprised how good it is
½ October 17, 2012
Pretty girls always cause trouble

Dr. Jekyll is fascinated by good and evil in people and he believes he is capable of separating the two. He believes he has discovered a potion to separate the two but can't gain the funding to test it on humans. He decides to test the potion on himself and unlocks his inner evil, Mr. Hyde. Once out, will Dr. Jekyll ever be able to get Mr. Hyde under control?

"The world is yours, my darling. The moment is mine."

Victor Fleming, director of Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Red Dust, A Guy Named Joe, Treasure Island, The Awakening, and Mama's Affair, delivers Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The storyline for this picture included more of a love interest than I had remembered. The action was okay and the acting was solid. The cast includes Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman, Lana Turner, and Donald Crisp.

"We doctors can't experiment on human beings."

I caught this film when a recent Spencer Tracy marathon aired on Turner Classic Movies (TCM)and I decided I had to watch this horror classic. I will say this wasn't quite as good as I hoped and was a bit boring in spots but the story of the female character was fascinating. I don't particularly recommend this old school classic.

"The bull is leaving the china shop."

Grade: C+/B-
½ September 4, 2012
I prefer Tracey's Jekyll to Frederic March (who won an Oscar for his performance). Here, Tracey's Mr. Hyde is more of a creppy looking man than a monster. This version is the same as the 1933 version, only with a better cast and better directing.

Grade: B+
½ September 4, 2012
Solid cast with Tracey, Bergman, and Turner. For a film that is set in England and with all the supporting cast speaking with a British accent it just seems odd that none of the stars speak in one. Well Bergman tries in her first scene but it is quickly lost as she charms Tracey, I guess a Cockney accent is not as sexy as a Swedish one. Tracey plays the title roles, with minimal makeup for the second part. Turner plays his society girlfriend and Bergman is a barmaid who Tracey rescues from a street crime. In the end I never bought into Tracey's interpretation of Mr. Hyde nor his performance as the perception is we are basing it off of how the others overreact to him opening his eyes wide. He is fine as Jekyll an the rest of the cast is good as is the direction and camera work although some of the scenes during the transformation are just odd. The performance gets better toward the end but at that point it is to late.
½ October 5, 2011
While it's a rip-off (and a needless one at that), and while Fleming has none of Mamoulian's formal genius, he does have a polish to his craft and a mastery of classical studio convention that makes this iteration worthwhile. And, as much criticism as Tracy has received, he's March's equal in a tremendous central performance; Ingrid Bergman is also an improvement on the casting of the original film, and she and Tracy's scenes together are electric.
July 28, 2011
*** (out of four)

Fair, but Hollywoodized version of the Robert Lewis Stevenson classic novel. Spencer Tracy makes the film as good as it is. The added female characters feel tacked on mostly by obligation to the studio.

Tracy is the doctor who finds his evil side. He terrorizes the streets of London and then turns back into his good self.
½ February 27, 2011
The cast is terrific, but they seem a bit miscast and unsure of themselves. The sexual undertones in the 1932 version are terribly watered-down here and looses a lot of it's punch. I found my interest wandering too often.
½ September 6, 2009
Because of the Hays Code many movies made prior to its enforcement were no longer able to be shown. This bred a plethora of re-makes. Like re-makes to this day, they rarely capture what made the original great. This one is 'glossy,' typical of most MGM productions from this era. This takes away from the film in some respects as the grittiness of the earlier films aided the viewer in getting into Jekyll/Hyde's mind. Though much tamer in many senses than either of the preceding Jekyll adaptations (no super-slut prostitute like the 1931 version), it did feature an inexplicably 'rough' scene with a Hyde fantasy sequence. It shows him whipping both his fiancée and a prostitute while in the throes of passion. If you are going to see one Jekyll movie, stick with the 1931 version.
September 6, 2009
After awhile, it just gets boring. I wasn't impressed with any actor or actress (not even one of my all-time favs Ingrid Bergman). The transition scenes from Jekyll to Hyde and back are bad... even for 1941.
½ October 20, 2008
Well done and well acted especially Ingrid Bergman's role. Tracy does a good job but the film is almost an exact copy of the 1932 one that was nominated for several academy awards and won best actor. Still it is good and a worthy remake.
½ August 8, 2008
What a great cast, however Tracy's Hyde wasn't nearly as sinister as I would've hoped... he seemed more like a creepy old letch than the personification of evil. Bergman was amazing! Not my favorite of the Jekyll & Hyde films, but worth seeing if you enjoy any of the cast.
June 12, 2008
Why do they always feel the need to throw in a girl? In the case of the two later ones, two girls, one for each personality. There's no girl in the original novel, which I have actually read. In fact, most of what happens in the original novel is left out of the movie versions so that an entirely new plot can be slipped in. Ergo, while generations of movie-watchers think they know the character, they don't, really. They know what Hollywood has made of him over the last ninety years.

John Barrymore makes a good Jekyll, I think the best of the lot for all Fredric March's Oscar for the role. I also think the first adaptation was the closest, for all there's the superfluous fiancee. At least they didn't try to throw in a superfluous music hall girl as a love interest for Hyde. Hyde, I think, would not have a kept woman; Hyde would not feel any particular attachment to any particular woman. Still, at least all three seem to have gotten the idea that Hyde doesn't have to be [i]too[/i] over-the-top. The March version is pretty interesting from a makeup perspective; they made him look rather like our idea of a Neanderthal, as though Hyde is less evolved than Jekyll.

Famously, this is the novel that Stevenson wrote in a fury, that so scared his wife that he burned the manuscript--and the story consumed him so that he rewrote it almost as quickly as he'd written it in the first place. While I'm not particularly frightened by the novel, it's eerier than all the movie versions I've seen so far. (Yes, there are more. There are dozens.) The original Dr. Jekyll is more distant. The original Mr. Hyde is more menacing. The [i]contrast[/i] between the two men is heightened, despite the addition of the girl. Maybe because of it; it's hard to say in retrospect. But in the book, Jekyll is all intellect and Hyde is all emotion. I think that makes a difference.

I'm not sure that there will be a proper adaptation even if I watched all two dozen, a thing I cannot face even if the library made it possible. The thing is, neither side of this famous character is particularly likable. It's hard to appreciate the good of such a cold character as Dr. Jekyll, and it's easy to note his hypocrisy. He [i]wants[/i] to be all good, but he also wants to let out his Dionysian side. So he takes the potion, and he lets loose Hyde. He gives up quite a lot for the pleasure of being the darker Hyde. Not a fiancee, blessedly--she's such a burden to the story--but his better work, and worse, his better self. As for Hyde, he is evil. There is no other word that describes him so clearly.

Maybe it's that three in two days was a little much. Maybe I'm right, however, and none of them are all that good. The most interesting thing in the series of films is that, in the Barrymore, most of the cast is credited on their first appearance. It's an interesting way of doing things, but I don't think it would work now that the age of title cards is over.
Page 1 of 9