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

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Reviews

Page 1 of 9
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.
Super Reviewer
½ October 26, 2015
Watch this OR the previous one. Both are good and there's little difference.
September 19, 2015
If you mess with perfection, you end up with the beast.
September 7, 2015
The best of the lot of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hydes due to spencer tracy's portrayal, which focuses on the desire for complete sexual and personal domination over Ivy Peterson (Ingrid Bergman), or anyone Mr. Hyde would fancy, but it's Ivy's mistake to take up with this monster. Ivy had a sense of what he was but she didn't trust her instincts. It should be noted that Dr. Jekyll has his own problems re the domination sought by his father-in-law to-be re his fiancee, Beatrix Emery (Lana Turner). Went with a friend who exclaimed during the screening: I've never seen anything like this! Check it out, but be prepared to be relatively bored for the first half-hour during the set-up..
½ September 6, 2015
Tracy is ultimately unconvincing.
August 13, 2015
an other amazing classic
½ January 20, 2015
Correcta revisiůn a la historia del Dr Jekyll y Mr Hyde, buenas escenas como las de la transformaciůn con Lana Turner e Ingrid Bergman como parte de los deseos y obsesiones del dr Jekyll, otro punto a favor la impecable fotografŪa en blanco y negro.
½ December 16, 2014
Dazzling classic horror draws from this film which happens to be shorten by some of its arguments.
½ November 3, 2014
In an ideal world, this version of the oft-told story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde should have been one for the ages; perhaps even definitive.  Instead, it has come to be widely dismissed as a poor knockoff, disliked even by the Hollywood A-Listers whose presence should have made it great. 

Ingrid Bergman, originally cast as ‚??good girl‚?? Beatrix, convinced the producers to let her switch to the role of ‚??bad girl‚?? Ivy so that she could show off her range and prove that she didn‚??t always have to play the role of the angel.

Lana Turner‚??s star was on the rise at the time, and she, too, was happy to switch roles to show off her range, especially alongside a cast as strong as this one.

Unfortunately, everyone ‚?? cast and audience alike ‚?? would end up disappointed.

While any sane heterosexual male would certainly envy the dilemma faced by Spencer Tracy‚??s character ‚?? the choice of romancing either Ingrid Bergman or Lana Turner ‚?? savvy fans will note that neither a fianc√©e nor a ‚??tart‚?? appears in the original novella by Robert Louis Stevenson.¬† This is because this¬†Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde¬†is not really based on Stevenson‚??s story, but instead is a rather blatant (nearly scene for scene) remake of a version that starred Frederic March in the title role ten years earlier.
October 29, 2014
Not bad. Not too bad. Really long for a film of this time. Slow beginning. But the hook gets there in the second adaption of the classic self-induced schizophrenia...
½ March 27, 2014
gr8 cast makes this my favorite version of this often filmed tale.
March 15, 2014
Good performances, but I watched it back to back with the 30's version and it was inferior. I prefer the Hyde of the 30's.
½ February 28, 2014
The story is an old one and there are many versions - but this one still nails it. The nuances and layering are as a resonant today as they ever were. The casting of the fundamnetally decent Spencer Tracey adds to the thematics. The film has only one flaw, I can never believe Ingrid Bergman could ever be common in any way.
February 15, 2014
The is the best version of the famous story written by Robert Louis Stevenson. Spencer Tracy is the lead, and the movie has remarkable special effects showing his changes from Jekyll to Hyde. Lana Turner is Jekyll's love interest, and Ingrid Bergman, in an unforgettable role, is the dance hall woman who attracts Hyde. A thriller with a great musical score, including Ingrid singing "You Should See Me Dance the Polka".
January 22, 2014
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.
½ August 27, 2013
It too often attempts to mimic much of the same artistic choices of the 1931 version and reorganizes unnecessary plot structures but the 1941 version benefits from Spencer Tracy's performance and some different yet odd visuals.
July 15, 2013
I Like Horror Films.
May 24, 2013
The best version!

This is a thoughtful interpretation of the Stevenson story but is very rarely emotionally engaging. The theme seems to be sexual repression, with Hyde coming from Jekyll's repressed lust. As Hyde takes over we witness some extraordinary and very graphic Freudian imagery such as Bergman and Turner, naked, pulling a chariot containing Tracy and his whip, and Bergman being screwed out of a bottle by a corkscrew! Amazing. But the horror of the story is never realized and there is too much philosophical chat.

Tracy is terrific in the lead, but his make-up for Hyde is too subtle to be effective. The transformations require him to stand completely still which makes them a bit dull. The final transformation is quite an achievement however. Bergman could have been great but her attempt at a cockney accent seriously detracts from her fine emotional interpretation. Lana Turner is awful as Tracy's true love. But the rest of the cast is very strong - especially Donald Crisp.

The film also contains some fine Fleming touches, including his beautiful slow pans over magnificent sets and crowd scenes. The cinematography is excellent - make sure you don't watch the colorised version - and foggy Victorian London is recreated stunningly. This film never rises to the horror of the 1920 or the 1932 versions but still has much to offer.
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
February 5, 2013
it's kinda exhausting to see Inggrid to played such a sad character, but Tracy's performance is worth to watch thou :)
Page 1 of 9