Opiniones de usuarios

It was probably too soon for Spencer Tracy to have tried a remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Ten years was not long enough for people to forget Fredric March's Oscar winning performance from the Paramount classic of 1931. This version of the Robert Louis Stevenson horror novel drew for Tracy some of the few bad reviews he ever got as a player because it was too soon. Time has been good to this film and we can see the differences in interpretation.

The Jekyll character that Tracy creates is a soft spoken guy, a lot like Father Flannagan. He's a medical doctor, more interested in research than in a practice. Before Sigmund Freud ever coined the terms ego and id to describe man's duel nature of good and evil, Stevenson had those same notions about man's behavior and incorporated them in his novel.

The Hyde character was a bold experiment. Tracy was probably the player in Hollywood who disliked makeup the most. Yet for this film and for few others, he allowed himself to be made up ever so slightly to suggest the evil Hyde. It was a far cry from the simian appearance of Fredric March's Hyde and Tracy got criticized for it. Retrospectives now are kinder to him and his method of interpretation.

Stepping into the female roles played by Rose Hobart and Miriam Hopkins in the March version are Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman. Lana Turner although later she played quite a few sexpots was at this stage of her career playing very winsome proper young ladies and not doing a bad job of it.

Ingrid Bergman plays Champagne Ivy, probably one of the most luckless characters in fiction. Ivy was not in the original novel, she was in the play that was adapted from the Stevenson novel and she's come down to us ever since. This poor girl, no better than she ought to be meets Tracy as Jekyll and he's attracted, but engaged to Turner. When he becomes Hyde, the beast within him remembers and stalks Bergman mercilessly ending in tragedy all around.

Besides March and Tracy other actors who've tried this most difficult of parts are John Barrymore, Jack Palance, and Kirk Douglas. Only the best can and are willing to tackle Jekyll and Hyde. And there ain't no doubt that Tracy is one of the best.

Set in Victorian England in 1887, a wealthy doctor by the name of "Dr. Jekyll" (Spencer Tracy) has begun experimenting on animals to determine if it is possible to separate good qualities from those determined to be bad. When he discusses his research at a dinner party his ideas are met with a great deal of consternation, especially on the part of his fiancé's father, "Sir Charles Emery" (Donald Crisp). In fact, Sir Charles is so concerned that he decides to take his daughter, "Beatrix Emery" (Lana Turner) with him out of the country in order to separate the two and give him some time to think about whether the wedding should go forward or not. In the meantime, Dr. Jekyll has grown frustrated with the progress of his research and decides to administer his experimental concoction on himself. Suddenly he turns from a charming and considerate person into a malevolent being called "Mr. Hyde". To make matters worse, with Beatrix gone he sets his sadistic sights on a young barmaid named "Ivy Peterson" (Ingrid Bergman) to satisfy his brutal and abusive nature. Now, rather than detailing the entire plot I will just say that the director (Victor Fleming) does an excellent job of capturing the dark and gloomy ambiance that this movie depends upon. And while both Lana Turner and Ingrid Bergman turn in very good performances, it is Spencer Tracy who really makes this film so successful. Definitely recommended for fans of classic horror.

For years I knew that Fredric March had won one of his Oscars for DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE back in the '30s and always assumed that because of this his performance was superior to Spencer Tracy's.

But having just seen the Tracy-Bergman-Turner version, my opinion has changed. Whereas the make-up for March makes him look like a cheap monster in a Universal thriller and almost Simian, Tracy achieves a distinctly chilling effect simply through posture and facial expressions alone with a minimum of make-up. His first encounter with the barmaid Ivy (Ingrid Bergman) is beautifully done with both of them registering emotions as they play against each other--Tracy with a wicked gleam in his eye and Bergman trying to hide her fear. She creates a really sympathetic character, especially when she realizes the extent of her degradation. Her scenes with Tracy where he is sadistically taunting her remind one of the cat-and-mouse game she played with Charles Boyer in "Gaslight".

The B&W photography realistically captures Victorian London after dark with its swirling mists and street lamps. All of the performances are first rate except for an uncertain Lana Turner who has a pallid role and can do little with it.

The only flaws are the film's length--it takes too long to tell the tale with its long-winded speeches--and the leisurely pace under Victor Fleming's direction makes the horror more muted than it need be.

I had the fortune of seeing BOTH this version and the 1931 Frederic March version only about a week apart. Because of this it gave me an excellent chance to compare and contrast them. And it also gave me a chance to see that the two films were extremely similar--so similar that the later MGM film seems more a remake of the 1931 film and not an adaptation of the original book. There was much more similarity between the movies than the book. And, while they both are good, I would definitely say that I preferred the earlier version.

Since the 1931 film was made during the so-called "Pre-Code" era before the guidelines of the production code governing morality in pictures was enforced, it is a more "earthy" and sexually charged film. In this earlier version, March develops the chemical formula simply out of curiosity and a desire to "sow wild oats" without detection. In other words, since Mr. Hyde looked more like a half-man/half-chimp, he could whore around without getting caught or ruining his reputation. The 1941 version had much nobler intent, as nice-guy Dr. Jekyll created his elixir in order to separate the good and evil aspects of our personalities so we could live purer and more wholesome lives without our subconscious evil desires impeding us! In addition, since the 1931 version was pre-Code, it tended to show more skin and imply more about sex, whereas the 1941 version showed Hyde more as a sadist. In general, the 1941 version was a little bit tamer and more "family-friendly", though I think both are fine for older kids.

There were a few negatives I noticed in this otherwise well-made film. One was that Hyde looked almost exactly like Dr. Jekyll. This MIGHT have been a daring and intelligent way to take the movie (though certainly NOT in keeping with Robert Lewis Stevenson's book)--showing the "monster" as looking like a sloppy man, but a man nevertheless. However, this makes no sense, as Ingrid Bergman (the woman Hyde desires) already met Dr. Jekyll BEFORE meeting Hyde and yet couldn't see that they were the same guy! At the very least, she should have thought they were brothers! But, to go to Dr. Jekyll and complain about how abusive Hyde was just seemed silly.

Also another quibble is with the choice of Ms. Bergman as the earthy barmaid (in the 1931 version, she seemed more like a prostitute than a member of the working poor). Changing her part a bit wasn't the problem, but that Ingrid sounded like a Swedish lady trying to sound Cockney--which is what she was! At times, she forgot the accent altogether and at other times she just sounded kind of weird. She was a wonderful actress, but the casting decision was dumb.

As far as Tracy goes, he was fine as Jekyll, but there were times when it was obvious that you were watching a stuntman instead of Tracy. The scenes just weren't done very well and you can't blame Tracy for this but the director. Just watch the scene in the hallway after Hyde's confrontation with Bergman--it's pretty obvious that the guy jumping about isn't Tracy and it doesn't look much like him.

One observation about Tracy. I've recently read a biography about him and choosing him to play the lead was pretty interesting because in real life, Tracy definitely had a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality. When he was sober (which apparently wasn't often enough), he was a sweet guy, but when he drank he was abusive and very reminiscent of the dreaded Hyde. I wonder if anyone at the time noticed this.

I just saw this movie for the first time a few days ago and really enjoyed it. I must say I was a little surprised by the bits of "erotic" imagery. I wonder what people thought of that back in 1941. The performances by Ingrid Bergman and Spencer Tracy were very good. Ingrid is mesmerizing and beautifully effervescent. Her strange accent though is at first hard to comprehend. (Is she supposed to be Swedish, Irish, Cockney or what?) It's also fun to see how they managed the special effects - if you look closely at any one of the action scenes involving Mr. Hyde, there are many very obvious stunt doubles and other endearing "mistakes". I also thought it had just enough philosophical underpinnings to make it not just a old fluff "horror" movie.

There isn't much I can add to all of the well-informed reviews that precede mine, but I would like to point out one thing. As an author and researcher on Jack the Ripper (Sherlock Holmes and the Autumn of Terror, Rukia London, 2016), I can say that one of Jack's victims, Elizabeth "Long Liz" Stride was in fact Swedish and worked as a prostitute in the East End of London in 1887 and 88 - the exact time and place in which the movie is set. Thus, Bergman's accent is completely believable to me.

Did they really need to make this classic tale again so soon? Prior to this there had been almost a dozen adaptations since the first, the tale simply saturated the market.

Here we see Ingrid Bergman star putting in a strong performance in this loyal to the source material adaptation. I certainly enjoyed it, but it's not been long since the previous version which was near identical.

I prefer when an adaptation is loyal, the only flaw is it causes the movies to be exceptionally similar and have nothing to differentiate themselves from the others. This version badly suffers that as it's near scene for scene the same as the 1932 version.

Well acted, well made, thumbs up all round. But why do they think its a good idea to pound out the same movie every few years?

The Good:

Ingrid Bergman

The Bad:

Done to death

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.

Many versions of the Robert Louis Stevenson classic of "DJ&MH" come and go, the one with Spencer Tracy is the absolute favorite of mine. I just love the trick camera work of this one. Where Dr. Henry Jekyll becomes the revolting and sinister Mr. Edward Hyde. The translation of the novel was well made, and as I recall, the way Hyde looked at himself in the mirror, really made my blood curdle. When Hyde went to the bar and be spilling the pounds all over, man that is one man I wouldn't be around. The dinner scene is great, and the church scene is really good as well, the only scene that really tops it was when Hyde kills a man with the cane that belonged to Jekyll. That to me is really going too far. Turning from one man into another is a game one person shouldn't play, there's always going to be a price to pay. And Jekyll had to pay it. When they showed that Jekyll was transforming into Hyde, the police never wasted any time. The book is everything, the movie is a classic. It is everything a novel lover should have. 5 stars

This version of the Stevenson classic story doesn't hold a candle to the 1931 version but it has a lot to recommend on its own. The main complaint about it is that it doesn't feel like a horror film but more a psychological drama or thriller. Spencer Tracy's Hyde is less monsterish than Fredric March's. But this is more in keeping with the story they wanted to tell with this version, which is a focus on the psychological rather than the physical. Still, Tracy does a good job.

Ingrid Bergman and Lana Turner were originally cast in the other's part but switched to offer Bergman a chance to play against type. This works to great effect, in my opinion. Turner is a sweet, lovely angel here. A far cry from the glamorous femme fatale we think of her as today. As for Bergman, her sexy performance as Ivy is the standout of the film. One of my favorite roles of hers. The movie's a bit slow and probably won't please monster fans but it's a good movie with fine performances and nice direction. It really only suffers by comparison. Judged on its own merits it's very entertaining.

The studios could pull some pretty low tricks sometimes. When MGM went into production on their version of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson, they bought up the rights the Paramount's 1931 edition, for the purpose of destroying the negative and with it, their competition. Commercial rapacity is potentially more ruthless than censorship or simple negligence. Luckily, they didn't succeed in rooting out every copy so the older film is still extant. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem they paid too much attention to providing a worthy successor.

With such a uniquely tricky part as Jekyll/Hyde, casting is a matter of precision. MGM went for the "safe" bet of thrusting their most talented male lead into the role. And Spencer Tracy is undoubtedly a superb actor, but that doesn't mean he can do everything. Among the things he can't do is be convincingly English. Of course, mastering an accent isn't everything, but when you see him in top hat and tails, strutting around a mock-up of Victorian London, hobnobbing with Ian Hunter, and it's STILL the same old Spencer Tracy, a distinctly corny atmosphere descends on the proceedings. But if you think Tracy is bad as an English gent, wait 'til you see Ingrid Bergman as a cockney lass! She is actually acting very well, but when they give her lines like "You aren't half a fast one, aren't you " (sic) with her thick Swedish accent, you can wave bye-bye to any remaining traces of credibility.

But of course, the real question is not if Mr Tracy makes a good Jekyll. Does he make a good Hyde? Erm, no. The make-up department have dabbed his face a bit, and Tracy bares his teeth and widens his eyes, but really he still just looks like Spencer Tracy on a bad hair day. He does a pretty good job at being menacing, but major plot points revolve around Hyde being unrecognisable as Jekyll, so again we see believability gurgling away down the plughole. Compare this to the 1931 equivalent, where Fredric March turned into a hairy, subhuman and very un-Marchlike beast. Comparisons are odious, but then so are many aspects of this film.

Still, the 1941 version is not without its merits. The screenplay is by John Lee Mahin, a name on many classic pictures, and he has done a nice job here. In the original novel, the narrative is from the point of view of an acquaintance of Jekyll, and the horror derives from the mystery of this strange character Hyde. All the major film versions (including the silent one with John Barrymore) tell it from Jekyll's own perspective, perhaps because the makers in each case felt the story's secret was too well known. In my view, this weakened those earlier film versions. Mahin puts elements of horror back into the plot by focusing much more on the plight of Ivy than on Jekyll's transformations. Hyde's terrorizing of the innocent barmaid takes on the quality of an abusive domestic relationship, and is very effective.

Picking up on the horror tone is director Victor Fleming. Fleming had never done a horror before, although bits of Wizard of Oz are certainly creepy, and he adapts to it well enough, with lots of low angles and stark imagery. He keeps a kind of aloof distance in the scenes featuring Tracy as Jekyll, whereas scenes with Hyde are full of mean close-ups. He excellently handles the tension-filled meetings between Tracy-as-Hyde and Bergman making great use of the cramped space of Ivy's flat (which incidentally is unfeasibly lavish, but otherwise a fine bit of set design by Cedric Gibbons and Edwin Willis). When Tracy sits at the piano there is a long take with Bergman sitting nervously in the background, and then suddenly we are thrown into close-ups against blank backgrounds, the camera wheeling round with the actors in a truly chilling moment.

But ultimately, the quality of the monster is a major factor in a horror movie. Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde was a critical and commercial flop. The grand irony is that MGM's purchase of the Paramount version means today the two appear side by side on the same DVD (produced by Warner Brothers, who now own large chunks of MGM's back catalogue) and viewers can decide with ease which is the better. Or should that be "least bad"?

Unlike Universal, MGM was never a studio associated much with out-and-out horror films (A notable exception: 1932's great "The Mask of Fu Manchu," with Boris Karloff, Myrna Loy, and Jean Hersholt). But, when they did make them, they made them with the legendary MGM class and gloss. And such a one was the 1941 version of Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." Unlike the March version, this wasn't a particularly scary film, but more of a suspenseful one. As befits the director who made "Wizard of Oz," "Red Dust," and "Gone with the Wind," Victor Fleming turns the story into a thinking man's horror film, and succeeds brilliantly.

As to the cast, Spencer Tracy, like Frederick March, was effectively cast against type for the part, and delivers a good, understated performance. His Hyde is very much the Hyde of the book, an evil, decayed version of Jekyll himself, rather than a monster. This last was accomplished by Jack Dawn's equally understated makeup. Lana Turner, and Jekyll's fiance, Beatrix, is little more than pretty set decoration. Let's face it, she wouldn't really prove she could act until "Peyton Place" and "Imitation of Life" in the late '50's. But Ingrid Bergman, now, that's another story! In one of her first U.S. films, she delivers a brilliant performance as Ivy Peterson, the Cockney barmaid unwillingly cought up in Hyde's insane reign of terror. Her scenes with Tracy, both as Jekyll and as Hyde, fairly crackle with energy. These are two comsummate pros working together, and they don't disappoint. In the only other supporting roles of any importance, Donald Crisp, Ian Hunter, Barton McLane, and Sara Allgood all aquit themselves beautifully.

An adaptation of "Robert Louis Stevenson's classic "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" wasn't particularly necessary after the 1931 version, but just as the Fredric March version brought new elements over the 1920 silent classic with John Barrymore, there could have been something fresh to make out of the 'old' material. The subject would have been even more relevant in the worldwide context of 1941. Unfortunately, the film only retreads the same formula and fails to pass as a superior version, mostly because of the prevailing Hays Code. Don't get me wrong, it is a good film in its own right and it's served by solid acting and confident directing, but the good parts were either as good in the 1931 version or better.

Although he looks more middle-aged than "young", Spencer Tracy delivers a fine performance as Dr. Jekyll, he's an ambitious, stubborn man who doesn't hesitate to confront a suspicious and unfriendly crowd when exposing some politically incorrect ideas about the natural duplicity of the human soul. And while he's a great Jekyll, Tracy can't explore the evil richness of Hyde as March was allowed to. I don't think it's a comment on his acting abilities since Tracy is the epitome of versatility, but something must have been too limiting in that directing from Fleming.

Mamoulian who did the 1931 film was a Russian so he could inject some bold creativity and he did... but Fleming was too conventional, if we except the one scene where I thought I was watching a Hitchcock movie. There's perhaps one stroke of genius that elevates the film slightly above its predecessor. During the transformation scene, a hallucination shows Jekyll whipping two horses whose faces are slowly transposed to the two women: Lana Turner who plays Beatrix, the eye-candy society lady and Ingrid Bergman who plays hell-for-soul prostitute Ivy Pearson. Apart from that one blow at the Code, the film might have been too 'good' for its own good.

Tracy could then only venture his character in the realm of emotional volatility rather than that bestial lust that made March so domineering. In the dinner scene, there's a lady referring to that new chap named Oscar Wilde. I don't think that was incongruous, among Wilde's famous quotations: "the best way to resist temptation is to yield to it.". The Jekyll/Hyde story has always been built on two chapters: Jekyll resisting the temptation and Hyde's dark indulgences. But there's nothing in that Jekyll that seems ever exposed to the temptations, even when he first meets Ivy, Tracy plays it like a father figure and Bergman's heart is broken. We see love more than lust.

And it doesn't get better with Hyde, the 1931 one had the face of a prehistoric man, incarnating our hidden impulses, Hyde here is evil all right but the very point of Hyde is to be more than a villain, here he looks like some bum escaped from an asylum, a rabid dog ready to bite out of despair, but not like some individual driven by something repressed for years.Maybe it's Lana Turner as Beatrix who failed to inspire Tracy (too voluptuous and sweet) but in the 1931 film, you could feel the sexual tension between Rose Hobart and March, and a similar tension between Jekyll and Ivy (played by Myriam Hopkins).

I guess, the code is to be blamed, because while it does expose battle between the forces of good and evil in human soul, the line that Jekyll has to cross is never drawn in clear terms. There were even moments where it was hard to tell if he was Jekyll turning into Hyde or the opposite, and even harder to believe his friend and colleague and best friend Lanyon (Ian Hunter) didn't know it was Jekyll. Still, for all these flaws, the film has one asset and not the least, her name is Ingrid Bergman. I read that it was her performance in "Intermezzo" that won her the part for "Casablanca", I'm pretty confident that this film achieved to convince the producers, she was good on an Oscar level, proving to have some gift when it came to play long suffering women.

There was something in her performance as the poor ill-fated Ivy that almost stole the thunder of Jekyll and Hyde and avoided her typecast as 'nice women', she embodied the trauma of women who're pleasant enough to appeal to respectable men but can only attract sleazy thugs like Hyde. She was a real tragic character and indirectly the redeeming factor of the film. I didn't feel scared by Hyde as much as I felt sorry for Ivy. And the way she went from childish joy to sheer terror when the shadow of Hyde begun to creep was perhaps the most painful to watch moment. Yes she was that good.

And she was so good that according to Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy wanted Bergman to play the dual role and I thought that was an interest twist on the story, how about the duplicity of women as well as men. Lana Turner didn't add nothing to the film (without ruining it though) so it's sad that Fleming didn't follow that advice, who knows, maybe the film's reputation would have been enhanced? It's still worth to watch for the atmosphere, the performances of the two leads but this is one movie where the context is crucial to understand where it succeeded, and where it failed. Fortunately, there's still the 1931 version, and it is the definite one.

This was the third version of the oft filmed Robert Louis Stevenson story of a man's battle with his good and evil personalities. Although I consider the Fredric March version filmed ten years earlier to be better, this is nonetheless an entertaining film. Spencer Tracy takes on the title roles in this version with Ingrid Bergman playing the tragic bar-maid (not prostitute) Ivy Peterson and both are great in their roles.

Dr Jekyll (Tracy) is a successful high society doctor who is engaged to Beatrix Emery (the very young and very beautiful Lana Turner) whose father Sir Charles (Donald Crisp) is skeptical of Jekyll's trying to prove that man's soul has two sides...one good and one evil and thus places doubts on his daughter's future happiness. One night while returning home with his friend Dr. Lanyon (Ian Hunter), they come upon bar-maid Ivy Peterson (Bergman) who is being beaten by an unruly patron. Jekyll comes to her aid and takes her home. Ivy is immediately attracted to the suave and debonair Jekyll and tries to seduce him. Jekyll repels her advances but secretly harbors a desire for her.

Meanwhile, Sir Charles having become disillusioned with Jekyll's theories, takes Beatrix on a trip to the continent. Jekyll becomes distraught and buries himself in his work. One night he decides to try a formula he has created to separate good and evil personalities on himself. What emerges is a grotesque and brutal personality whom he names Mr. Hyde.

Hyde immediately remembers the alluring Ivy and seeks her out. He literally takes over her life and sets her up in a classy apartment and keeps her there "for his own purposes". He brutalizes her to the point the she fears his every appearance.

When Sir Charles and Beatrix return from their trip, Sir Charles agrees to an early marriage feeling that Jekyll has finally come to his senses. Jekyll then vows not to become Mr. Hyde again. But unfortunately, he makes an uncontrolled transformation on the street after having assured Ivy that Hyde would no longer bother her when she came to see him earlier.

Naturally Hyde goes straight to Ivy's apartment and confronts her on what she had said about him to Jekyll. She tries to escape but to no avail. Jekyll realizes that now he can no longer control Mr. Hyde and goes to Beatrix to break their engagement with tragic results.

Tracy's makeup is far less monstrous than that created for Fredric March ten years earlier. Director Victor Fleming goes for exaggerations of Tracy's features and the playing up of the psychological differences between Jekyll and Hyde. The first couple of transformations are played as dream sequences involving good girl Turner and bad girl Bergman. We don't see the actual transformation until well on into the movie.

Of note is the fact that although the story is set in late 19th century London, most of the cast speak without British accents. As talented as Ingrid Bergman was, her Cockney bar-maid accent is laughable. Also Jekyll's charitable work with the poor is barely mentioned in this version.

In addition to the above principals, look for Barton MacLane as man gone mad, Sara Allgood as his distraught wife, a clean shaven C. Aubrey Smith as a bishop and former silent movie comic Billy Bevan as Mr. Weller a lamplighter.

Tracy and Bergman make this an enjoyable movie.

I have to disagree with the comment "For all you Tracy fans only", and also with the comments that suggest the 1931 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is far better.

First of all, I am not a Spencer Tracy fan - at least I didn't consider myself as one. Yes, the word dull came to mind. But after seeing the superb 1941 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I found myself wondering if anyone could have played Dr. Jekyll and especially Mr. Hyde any better than him.

In the 1931s original a handsome, wimpy Dr. Jekyll transforms into an ugly, retarded Mr. Hyde. While this Mr. Hyde hardly resembles his alter ego Jekyll, except for neediness, I do not find that as a strong, interesting controversy in the film. Fredric March was a great actor, but in this film with this script different actors could have played the parts of Jekyll and Hyde and it wouldn't have made any difference. Awkward, still boring film.

I was expecting so much, but stopped taping this pretty soon into the film. The psychology is awful (I am not suggesting that all films should emulate "real" life, but all films should be "real" in a world of their own, whatever it is.) I had seen the 1941s version earlier, and boy, it doesn't have a dull moment. I started watching this for Lana Turner, and there she is, looking pretty. Yes, she should have played the part Ingrid Bergman took, but you can't have it all all the time. Perhaps Ingrid Bergman was the girl to play the waitress. I truly enjoyed her masochistic portrayal of the bad girl.

Yes the film owns a lot to the original - filmed on same location, same choreography? The makers of this film had a decade to learn from the mistakes of the original and turn it around with better lines and nuances.

With one look from Spencer Tracy, a trouble maker changes his mind. "I'm sorry governor". Imagine Fredric March, in his monkey make up, doing that? He would have been laughed out the club, or not get in at all.

To add the grade to 10, Peter Godfrey as the butler. The end of this film is truly spiritual, merciful and frightening at the same time. And all of this is accomplished without any phony art stuff, as they would have tried these days.

A true classic.

The second screen version of the Stevenson novel to come out of Hollywood is glossier than the first but not an improvement. It is a handsome but somewhat dull production. The main problem is that the plot moves at too leisurely of a pace, and the interactions among the characters are not interesting enough to sustain the narrative through nearly two hours. Tracy looks rather comical as the grinning Mr. Hyde, but he does not embarrass himself in this silly role. Bergman seems to be having a lot of fun as the prostitute that Tracy is attracted to and pursues her in his Dr. Hyde persona. Turner is young and lovely in an undemanding role.

MGM did a stellar job of producing a high quality Horror film, putting together director Victor Fleming (of "Gone with the Wind" fame) and stars Lana Turner, Ingrid Bergman, and Spencer Tracy. This film demonstrates that horror doesn't have to be campy, low-budget schtick. Like 2000's "The 6th Sense," 1941's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" actually respected the horror material enough to demonstrate the heights to which a major studio could take the genre.

The film takes us to darker places than we dare imagined existed at good ol' MGM, home of the happy-go-lucky family musical. We see the confident, handsome, Jeckyll dissolve into a cruel, crass, foul-minded Hyde with Tracy's masterful performance.

Bergman and Turner also turn in gritty, splendid performances with their less-than-life affirming characters. Rather than playing it for sci-fi thrills, this interpretation of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel focuses more on Tracy's losing battle to tame the demon of Hyde. The result is a riveting parable on the banality of evil (all the more visceral in retrospect, given the film's release at the brink of World War II.)

The Film Snob, Lee Cushing

1941's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" has long been the version most people see first, because MGM for many years suppressed the 1931 Paramount version with Fredric March, which I too consider superior to this one for its pre-code flair. That is not to say that this is weak by any stretch, as both films are approached from a different perspective in regard to Edward Hyde, March the less likely, primitive Neanderthal Hyde, Spencer Tracy the more realistic, psychological rendition, utilizing little makeup in his chilling, unexpected interpretation. This one takes its time, Hyde making his initial appearance 35 minutes in, and while the pacing never really flags, it does seem to go on a bit too long. Lana Turner compares favorably with Rose Hobart, but it's still a rather thankless role in either version. Ingrid Bergman looks and acts very well (even with her charming accent), but the script doesn't allow her the same latitude that Miriam Hopkins enjoyed. As Lanyon, who exposes his friend Jekyll as the fiend he is, Ian Hunter previously appeared opposite Basil Rathbone, Boris Karloff, and Vincent Price in 1939's "Tower of London" (as King Edward), while in one of his last films played another physician in 1960's "Doctor Blood's Coffin." This version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" made two appearances on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater: Sunday June 7 1964 (paired with Saturday afternoon's "Fiend Without a Face"), and Saturday July 24 1965 (followed by second feature 1943's "Revenge of the Zombies").

The 1931 version of DR. JECKYLL AND MR. HYDE was directed by Rouben Mamoulian, and it starred Fredric March in the dual title role. It won the star the Best Actor Oscar, the only time that award was won for a horror film role (or a science fiction part). Mamoulian experimented at the start, and in one key sequence with the "I am a camera" technique, wherein the viewer was treated like he was seeing things from the perspective of the character of Jeckyll. Jeckyll himself was supposed to look like an early form of prehistoric man - nearly an ape. It's still a good performance, but many feel it is too stylized.

Ten years later MGM decided to do the property again, this time with Spencer Tracy. Tracy actually decided to follow a more classical approach to the role. He eschewed the make-up that March (and in the silent film, John Barrymore) used for the evil Hyde, and used a combination of facial contortions and lighting to change his appearance from the good doctor to his evil counterpart.

One would like to say that it works. It worked pretty well in 1888 for Richard Mansfield in his celebrated stage performance. But Mansfield could play with the theater lighting to create the physical change on stage. It was an amazing stage effect. It can't be done as well on film (or at least in a 1941 film - computerization might help today). Tracy's grimacing face does not look much different from his serious, good natured face for the Doctor. Even with the lights concentrating on his eyes it still doesn't look that different.

The result is that the audience has to make a logical jump and say that there was a physical change, in order to accept the story line. Otherwise, everyone would say that Jeckyll and Hyde is the same guy in the movie.

Fortunately Tracy's acting allows us to make such a logical jump. He was a terrific actor, and he certainly uses a subtlety in his evil that is unnerving. Except for his Arnold Boult in EDWARD MY SON he never portrayed as evil a character.

The best scene to catch Tracy's Hyde at it's best is when he is visiting his mistress Ivy. She had been hoping he would not come, but she was drinking when he arrives - to steady her nerves. No wonder - Hyde is like a cat toying with a mouse as he plays with Ivy. He plays the piano and keeps discounting various things that he and Ivy could do if they leave the apartment (as she would hope - if they are in public she has a better chance for help). But he keeps finding reasons not to do things, so that (in his opinion) it is better for them to stay at home. And even at home, they have limited options. "You could read to me," Hyde sweetly says, "But we do not have the book!" A later scene where he surprises a sleeping Lana Turner on a park bench, leering at her, is also unnerving. You never see Tracy like that in other films.

Bergman's Ivy is to be compared with Miriam Hopkins in the earlier film. Both realize that Dr. Jeckyll is sexually interested in them, and both secretly hope to catch him (not realizing that he has caught them in his bad personality). But Hopkins always seemed prepared to act like a prostitute (in the 1931 film she readily shows off her leg for March's Jeckyll). But Bergman is more tragic in a way. She has a job as a bar maid that she is serious about (Hopkins was more of an "entertainer"). Bergman's Ivy is friendly but seemingly careful, and unfortunately she falls under the gaze of an unscrupulous man.

Interestingly in the 1931 film Hopkins was singing a version of an actual tune called "Champaign Charlie is my name", changing it to "Champaign Ivy is my name." She sings it happily at first, but when March demands her singing it, she sings it haltingly and frightened. Bergman sings a jaunty number, "Do you want to dance the polka?" at the bar, but is forced to sing it (as Hopkins did the other song) in a broken version for Tracy. Interestingly enough, when Michael Caine appeared in 1988 in a two part television film about Jack the Ripper, the music in a scene involving three of the Ripper's prostitute victims used "Do you want to dance the polka?" as background music, and I believe it was not a 19th song at all, but composed for the 1941 film.

Rose Hobart played the role of General Carew's daughter (Jeckyll's respectable fiancé) in the 1931 film. There was nothing especially interesting about her (except she was pretty), so she did not do much in that film. But Lana Turner was was a rising star, and her part got built up a bit with some scenes alone with Tracy. She also appears in a sexual fantasy sequence as one of a pair of "horses" (with Bergman) that Tracy is riding. And there is that "leering" sequence where Tracy as Hyde frightens her. Turner did nicely in the role, although Bergman's part was more interesting.

The supporting parts are equally good, with Donald Crisp as the doomed father of Turner, Aubrey Smith as the righteous Bishop Manners (who is thrown momentarily by a noisy Barton MacLane in his congregation, jeering at the Bishop's homilies about Christian goodness), and MacLane himself in the brief sequence as the insane man with no compunction about doing evil.

I like Tracy's version - on most points it is better acted than the 1931 version. But March's make-up, no matter how strange it looks, still is more acceptable than Tracy's dependence on light and shadows.

I just re-watched the Spencer Tracy version. Now I'm more positive than ever that it can't hold a candle to the 1931 Fredric March version for me. I've still managed to give it two and a half out of four stars though, because if it is to be considered on its own without ever having seen the 1931 classic to spoil it, it's still a pretty good movie. But when comparing it to the Rouben Mamoulian film, here are my quibbles: Tracy is a fine actor but is unbelievable and miscast as a too-modern Jekyll; he even says "Yeah" to his butler at one point. Everyone pronounces the name as "Jeh-kull" instead of "Gee-kull". The makeup on Hyde is practically non-existent (it's hard to believe that people cannot easily recognize this Jekyll when he's Hyde!), and while Tracy's performance is better when he's Hyde and he pulls it off, he is no match for Fredric March's Oscar-winning turn as the sadistic madman.The scenes between Hyde and Ivy feel too long and stretched out. Miriam Hopkins' Ivy has it all over Ingrid Bergman in every way. So much of the dialogue is the same or very similar to the 1931 film that I don't even know why they bothered with the remake, and it's a sin that the studio felt it necessary to take the older movie out of circulation and hide it; but I guess that's the only way the 1941 film could work and not be compared to its superior. But I will say one thing --- Lana Turner here is much hotter than Rose Hobart. **1/2 out of ****

Some reviewers have said that Spencer Tracy gives a measured and thoughtful performance in what is considered to be an interesting psychological study of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Yet, what is Tracy's mild mannered and low-key Dr. Jekyll really after in this film? What are his needs and what are his problems? He seems to have a few ideas about the nature of good and evil in every man and he's doing some experiments to further explore this theory. Oh yes, he also has a pretty girlfriend he's going to marry one of these days and for the most part he gets along pretty well with her father.

Now, let's clap an eye on Frederic March's Dr. Jekyll. Here's a man who's so sexually frustrated that he's going to put his fist through the wall any moment, unless his future father-in-law lets him marry his daughter Muriel within about the next 15 seconds. Muriel is played by Rose Hobart, who's superb performance is often overlooked because of the great job done by Miriam Hopkins as Ivy Pearson. Muriel knows that Jekyll is on fire for her, and constantly battles her father to move up the wedding. In contrast to the fairly good relationship that Tracy has with Donald Crisp, who plays Sir Charles Emery, the father of Beatrix, (Lana Turner) the relationship March has with Haliwell Hobbes as General Carew is full of tension and heated arguments.

Also, where as Tracy conducts his experiments with all the gusto of reading a book by the fireplace, March as Jekyll is young, vibrant and enthusiastic. He's so excited about his experiement, and while Tracy was going to give the potion to a hospital patient initially, March always intended to be the first to try it.

Once Mr. Hyde is on the scene, it becomes clear just how more focused the March version is in comparison to the Tracy version. Tracy's Hyde is nothing more than the run-down, sadistic side of Jekyll. But Frederic March's Mr. Hyde is clearly the sexually liberated side of Jekyll. March's Hyde is not going to be put on indefinite hold by the Victorian convictions of General Carew. No, he's going to have some sex right now, and off he goes looking for Ivy Pearson. When he discovers she's not home, he's quick to ask a neighbor where he can find her. In comparison, Tracy's Hyde does not go to Ivy's home, but to a dance-hall, and by a trick of chance, discovers Ivy working as a barmaid in the place.

March's performance is also more moving emotionally when he is on his way to his engagement party. When Tracy begins to change into Hyde in the same scene, he seems confused and a little troubled, but doesn't seem to know what's actually happening to him. But March senses what is happening to him in the last seconds before Hyde takes over, and goes through tremendous suffering and moans aloud as he fights in vain in an effort to keep Hyde back.

The theme of sexual frustration always runs true in the March version. As Hyde, when he ridicules Jekyll in fron of Ivy, he calls him a hypocrite for conforming to Victorian morality instead of indulging his lust with Muriel before their marriage vows. When Tracy's Hyde needles Jekyll, the focus is more on his vain effort to protect Ivy, and not on sexual frustration at all, since that really isn't pushed as an issue in this later version. Although Tracy gives an interesting performance in the dual role, his Dr. Jekyll is too laid-back and subdued to be convincing as a daring scientist and his Mr. Hyde is little more than a bully and a mischief maker. The Frederic March performance is more powerful, and the film as a whole is more focused and full of tension.