Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Favorite movie versions: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and others


Toto
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yesterday on TCM, I watched "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1931) starring Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins and found that I liked this version better than the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner.   The 1931 version is racier and scarier but also contains humorous parts.  I love Fredric March as Jekyll/Hyde.  He's the Victorian aristocrat romantic as Jekyll then he becomes an animal-like frightening Hyde.  He plays the part of Hyde as a monster who is intent on doing evil.    March is willing to go very dark and nasty as Hyde making his brutal attacks on the Miriam Hopkins character frightening.  I also love the performance of Miriam Hopkins who plays a tortured prostitute really well.  March used a stunt man and the stunt man did a great job as Hyde showing physical strength, agility and aggression that reminded me of a great ape.

Which version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde do you like better?  Or, can you recommend a better movie version of a movie that you love?

image.jpeg.82aae7f0ca779db2fd76128e4195599d.jpeg    image.jpeg.13bd23ed6a0c499cf9d699898bcf2525.jpeg       Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) - IMDb

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Toto said:

Yesterday on TCM, I watched "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1931) starring Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins and found that I liked this version better than the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner.   The 1931 version is racier and scarier but also contains humorous parts.  I love Fredric March as Jekyll/Hyde.  He's the Victorian aristocrat romantic as Jekyll then he becomes an animal-like frightening Hyde.  He plays the part of Hyde as a monster who is intent on doing evil.    March is willing to go very dark and nasty as Hyde making his brutal attacks on the Miriam Hopkins character frightening.  I also love the performance of Miriam Hopkins who plays a tortured prostitute really well.  March used a stunt man and the stunt man did a great job as Hyde showing physical strength, agility and aggression that reminded me of a great ape.

Which version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde do you like better?  Or, can you recommend a better movie version of a movie that you love?

image.jpeg.82aae7f0ca779db2fd76128e4195599d.jpeg    image.jpeg.13bd23ed6a0c499cf9d699898bcf2525.jpeg       Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) - IMDb

I agree with you that the 1931 version is superior. I do find, however, that Fredric March in his Mr. Hyde mode looks a bit like Jerry Lewis.

I'm also a fan of Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I agree with you the the 1931 version is superior. I do find, however, that Fredric March in his Mr. Hyde mode looks a bit like Jerry Lewis.

I'm also a fan of Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde (1971).

I thought the same thing about Mr. Hyde reminding me of Jerry Lewis.  I think Hyde's protruding teeth and slicked down hair remind me of Jerry Lewis in the 1963 version of "The Nutty Professor" which also tells a Jekyll and Hyde type of story.  I think though that despite the costume/makeup of Mr. Hyde, March carries off the role with his acting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a movie I think the Rouben Mamoulian/Fredric March version is the best of the Jekyll and Hydes. But, come on, who's going to look at a missing link like March's Mr. Hyde enter a tavern and think he's just a little bit of a roughneck? He looks like he escaped from the island of Dr. Moreau. At least Tracy's Hyde still looked human, though I'm not a fan of the film itself.

My favourite film Mr. Hyde is Jack Palance in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968). He plays the role like a bad boy roue who attacts the ladies and carries a sword stick by which he deals out sadistic pleasure.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) | MUBI

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer the Tracy version of the movie.  However, I think March's Jekyll  is more convincing, but his "monkey-man" Hyde has always been a turn off.

But, the folks at TCM like the '31 version so much they showed it TWICE yesterday!  

Sepiatone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Toto said:

Yesterday on TCM, I watched "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (1931) starring Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins and found that I liked this version better than the 1941 version starring Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner.   The 1931 version is racier and scarier but also contains humorous parts.  I love Fredric March as Jekyll/Hyde.  He's the Victorian aristocrat romantic as Jekyll then he becomes an animal-like frightening Hyde.  He plays the part of Hyde as a monster who is intent on doing evil.    March is willing to go very dark and nasty as Hyde making his brutal attacks on the Miriam Hopkins character frightening.  I also love the performance of Miriam Hopkins who plays a tortured prostitute really well.  March used a stunt man and the stunt man did a great job as Hyde showing physical strength, agility and aggression that reminded me of a great ape.

Which version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde do you like better?  Or, can you recommend a better movie version of a movie that you love?

image.jpeg.82aae7f0ca779db2fd76128e4195599d.jpeg    image.jpeg.13bd23ed6a0c499cf9d699898bcf2525.jpeg       Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) - IMDb

the 1931 is the best and a superlative film...as far as mister big wup spencer tracy he simply could not do a british accent.

FREDRIC MARCH RULES

:)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I prefer the first version. The Tracy version largely seems to be a scene-by-scene remake, even though the franchise has moved from one studio to another. The latter, however, does have an interesting psychosexual dream sequence in which the powerhouse combination of Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner are imagined as human versions of bridled horses with implied nudity. Probably the closest either actress came to actual on-screen nudity, unless Ingrid did it in one of her early career European films which I haven't seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the strong impression from comments here that the only adaptions of Stevenson's novel seen by many are those of March and Tracy. Since those are the two versions played by TCM and easily available on DVD, that's understandable. Still, I recommend seeing Jack Palance's take on the story, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It may not be quite as good as the March version but it gives it a run for the money and Palance is excellent in his Mr. Hyde scenes. There was also, of course, the 1920 silent version with John Barrymore which occasionally comes on TCM, as well.

Films From Beyond the Time Barrier: November 2012

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I have become Frederic March fans over the last few years.  He strikes me at least as having attended the Jeffrey Cordova School of the Dramatic Arts, in that March only reveals to us the top 1/7 of the emotional iceberg, while actually letting us in on  the submerged remaining 6/7.  We enjoy all his performances, and I think that March is most menacing as Mr. Hyde -- though Palance is simply true to form a psychopath.  

So I would vote '31 version tops with an even split between Tracy and Palance.  (I do remember watching the Palance version when it first aired on TV, and the blasted thing scared the be-jeebers out of me!  Back when that sort of thing was fun!).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so-much a jekel/hyde sorta thing; but if i catch the impetus of Your Thread Here Correctly ToTo: Agathe Cristies (sp) Ten Little Indians.

  Best to my knowledge there's three versions/interpretations of this story that have been put to film. I Definitely and Easily +Like G. Pollack's Vision and  (Re)Telling the Best. By FAR.   Just Has a Twinkle, To Go Along With This Special Bottled-Lightning Elixir (with)in the Script. The Likes of which have Hardly Ever been duplicated, replicated, and or copied with such Competent, Sharp Acumen in Any film before, during, or since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, brianNH said:

My wife and I have become Frederic March fans over the last few years.  He strikes me at least as having attended the Jeffrey Cordova School of the Dramatic Arts, in that March only reveals to us the top 1/7 of the emotional iceberg, while actually letting us in on  the submerged remaining 6/7.  We enjoy all his performances, and I think that March is most menacing as Mr. Hyde -- though Palance is simply true to form a psychopath.  

So I would vote '31 version tops with an even split between Tracy and Palance.  (I do remember watching the Palance version when it first aired on TV, and the blasted thing scared the be-jeebers out of me!  Back when that sort of thing was fun!).  

Glad to see that you saw the Palance version, Brian, a good adaption that deserves to be better known. Billie Whitelaw is also very effective in it as a tavern wench who has the misfortune to take up with Hyde.

Good as Fredric March is his missing link Hyde makeup prevents me from taking him entirely seriously, as opposed to the evil version of Palance in which he looks human.

Here are some clips from highlights from the film (SPOILER ALERT, though, on the ending):

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ARITOSTHENES:  There's at least 4 movie versions of TEN LITTLE INDIANS.  (And probably more movies with a similar plot that I've not heard of). 

 

Rene Clair's AND THEN THERE WERE NONE (1945)

TEN LITTLE INDIANS (1966-UK)  The George Poll-ock-directed version.

TEN LITTLE INDIANS (1975)  The Peter Collinson-directed version.  This version plays like a *parody* of the '66 version.  If you watch this version closely and really pay attention I think viewers would find it much more enjoyable because it's so screwy when you think about it. → It's like a weird joke adaptation played out in the Iranian desert.  The script for the '75 version is nearly identical to the '66 script -- albeit with a change of location and some oddball direction.  

TEN LITTLE INDIANS (1989)  Producer Harry Alan Towers third go-round at adapting the Agatha Christie novel.  Apparently the '66 and '74 versions were not enough for Harry!  He had to produce  an '89 version, too.  

HARRY ALAN TOWERS died in 2009 before he could re-do "Ten Little Indians" for a 4th time!  There is a picture of Harry on Wikipedia -- he looks like Nigel Farage in the photo!

EDIT:  Why does TCM have to hire complete morons to work for them who are 'movie illiterate'?  I typed out British director George ****'s name and it was 'auto-censored'.  What?!  I believe the ethnic term used by Archie Bunker to describe Mike 'Meathead' Stivic on ALL IN THE FAMILY was "p-o-l-a-c-k".  As in 'dumb p-o-l-a-c-k".  

This is P-O-L-L-O-C-K you 'Otto-Sensor' imbeciles!  Jeez!  

ANOTHER EDIT:  I see 'POLLACK' is not auto-censored despite it being closer to the spelling of the ethnic term than director George's *properly-spelled* last name. 

Like swimming in a "Sea Of Stupid", sponsored by TCM and The 8th Grade Dropouts Who Work In The Snail Mail Room.   😜

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the OP asks; "and others" I thought I'd chime in with the only version of the DRACULA story I like better, or as much as, the '31 version with BELA LUGOSI is the  '77 COUNT DRACULA, the BBC television production shot on the  video/film hybrid format.  Starring LOUIS JOURDAN  as the Count.   PBS used to show it routinely, but hasn't shown it for many moons.

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite Dracula movie is "Nosferatu".  A Symphony of Horror, 1922 silent German Expressionist horror film directed by F. W. Murnau.  This film was based on Bram Stoker's book "Dracula" but they had to change the name because the widow of the estate felt ripped off.  This movie may not be scary in the modern sense but I love it for its atmosphere, artistry and ideas.  Vampires are like an evil that dwells in the shadows and feeds on death.  Some of our worst fears are in this film such as disease and madness.  The scariest scenes for me are in the ship that becomes a ghost ship because all the crew is killed.  The image or "Count Orlok" the vampire rising straight up out of a coffin is really eerie.  This was one of the first silent films I watched and it proved to me how amazing and visually artistic silent films could be.

image.jpeg.76deb3509869efb41247534c4b505891.jpeg     Nosferatu - The Vampire Aboard Ship (1922) - YouTube   Scene From Nosferatu Le Vampire Circa 1922 Photograph by European School

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What also is notable about Fredric March's 1931 performance in the role is that he shared Best Actor at the Academy Awards for it (with Wallace Beery in THE CHAMP).    If Spencer Tracy was hoping he'd get one too...it was probably too much to expect 10 years after that win for the same role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 10:43 AM, TomJH said:

My favourite film Mr. Hyde is Jack Palance in The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968). He plays the role like a bad boy roue who attacts the ladies and carries a sword stick by which he deals out sadistic pleasure.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) | MUBI

I agree with this, in addition to Palance giving a great performance as the most sadistic Hyde, it is directed by Dan (Dark Shadows) Curtis. It is shot on videotape which gives it more of live stage performance feel to it. I own it on a VHS tape, introduced by TV host Elvira, who looks great but is not funny.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

I agree with this, in addition to Palance giving a great performance as the most sadistic Hyde, it is directed by Dan (Dark Shadows) Curtis. It is shot on videotape which gives it more of live stage performance feel to it. I own it on a VHS tape, introduced by TV host Elvira, who looks great but is not funny.

My main grievance with the film is the softness of its imagery because it was shot on video tape, as opposed to film. It was filmed in Toronto in 1968 and on a few occasions when I've been to Allan Gardens, where the film's climax was done, I've thought of Palance and the film crew having been there to create one of the best Jekyll and Hydes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer the Tracy/Bergman version.  Tracy's Hyde is someone you'd be more likely to run into in a dark alley, and he looked a bit more on the human side as well and could still scare the pants off of you. Bergman's Ivy is so pitiful and sympathetic at the same time when she's with Hyde.

I'm not saying that March and Hopkins weren't good in the 1931 version, they were.  But I prefer the Tracy/Bergman dynamics, plus I'm more fascinated with the Freudian aspect that the 1941's filmmakers chose to take with the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, the teaming of Dan Curtis and Jack Palance is formidable and I think the 1968 version is what Robert Louis Stevenson would be the most happiest with...

Palance is awesome! and Billie Whitelaw never looked hotter.

:)

"thank you, nip, my good man."

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968) | MUBI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

I'm in the minority here, but I actually prefer the Tracy/Bergman version.  Tracy's Hyde is someone you'd be more likely to run into in a dark alley, and he looked a bit more on the human side as well and could still scare the pants off of you. Bergman's Ivy is so pitiful and sympathetic at the same time when she's with Hyde.

I'm not saying that March and Hopkins weren't good in the 1931 version, they were.  But I prefer the Tracy/Bergman dynamics, plus I'm more fascinated with the Freudian aspect that the 1941's filmmakers chose to take with the story.

I prefer the March/Hopkins version which I see as having more of an edge.  However, the Tracy/Bergman version is really good too and you make a good point about the Freudian aspect in the story being really interesting.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely 1931 Jekyll for me. And absolutely Rene Clair's AND THEN THERE WERE NONE.

Speaking of the latter, I have a 16mm (dupe) print of the original trailer. It's the American trailer but adapted for British release with the British title (the same title as the book's original monicker!) Here it is with the title card at the end partially masked for obvious reasons.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...