Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

1941

Drama / Horror / Sci-Fi

0
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 61%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Spilled 60%
IMDb Rating 6.8 10 8920

doctor transformation evil double life jekyll and hyde

Please enable your VPN when downloading torrents

Get Secure VPN

Plot summary


Uploaded by: FREEMAN
May 21, 2022 at 09:39 AM

Director

Top cast

Ingrid Bergman as Ivy Peterson
Lana Turner as Beatrix Emery
Spencer Tracy as Dr. Harry Jekyll / Mr. Hyde
720p.BLU
1.01 GB
986*720
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
1 hr 52 min
P/S ...

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by bkoganbing 8 / 10

A Bold Experiment

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.

Reviewed by gayspiritwarrior 9 / 10

Two great actors, one role

A close look at the credits for both films will show that the 1941 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is more than merely a remake of the 1931 version. The screenplay of the later film was literally based on that of the earlier, and there are scene-by-scene and, in places, word-for-word duplications. Both are excellent, with my own preference going to the 1941 and Spencer Tracy. His performance is amazing, and so subtle that it's frequently dismissed as inferior work. To the contrary, it's every bit worthy of an early graduate of the Actors Studio. Spoilers follow.

The highlight of the film is the astonishing scene when Jekyll first changes involuntarily into Hyde. He's walking the sidewalk in the fog, whistling a Strauss waltz he earlier danced with his fiancée, played well in a throwaway role by Lana Turner. Without meaning to his whistling changes to the polka sung by barmaid Ingrid Bergman, whose performance is nearly a match to Tracy's. He stops, a confused look on his face, then walks on whistling the waltz. Again it changes to the polka, and he stops again, wiping his brow, confusion again on his face. Now unsure, he starts to walk again, and can only whistle the first notes of the polka. He stumbles to a park bench and changes into Hyde. Hyde looks about and then hurries over to the barmaid's flat, where as Jekyll he's just told her Hyde will never come again. Ivy is celebrating with champagne. In a brilliant mirror-shot we see her look of horror as the door opens and Hyde enters. The rest of the scene is simply unforgettable, between the deranged Hyde and the terrified Ivy, realizing her fate is at hand.

There are nice directorial touches in both films, and both tell the story very well. Many will prefer the more straightforward, showier 1931 version. For myself the 1941 is supreme, with Tracy delivering one of the all-time great screen acting performances. 9/10.

Reviewed by planktonrules 7 / 10

Very good, though so close to the 1931 version that this one doesn't seem all that necessary

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.

Read more IMDb reviews

No comments yet

Be the first to leave a comment