The genius of Robert Louis Stevenson's is to have immortalized through "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" the internal (and eternal) battle of the forces of good and evil. The story was bound to become a myth, providing a metaphor as classic as the good and bad angel whispering conflicting advice. And Hollywood didn't wait for the talkies to tackle the subject, John Barrymore played the iconic figure in a 1920 classic. But it's the 1931 version, directed by RoubenMamoulian but most often referred to as the "Fredric March" version; that became the staple. While it's only fair to identify the movie from the character playing the lead because this is the aspect upon which relies the film's suspension of disbelief (one man but two opposite personalities), the directing of Mamoulian contributed to the film's overall impact and not just on the special effects' department. The opening alone with the subjective camera conveyed perfectly the universality of the story, we don't see Jekyll because we are Jekyll, talk about a tone- setting masterstroke.Now about Fredric March: his performance as Jekyll/Hyde earned him one of the earliest Oscars ever, establishing a long love story between the Academy and 'split' performances. Astonishingly, March doesn't play different personalities but polar opposites that make you believe they're generated by the same psyche. When March is Jekyll, you can sense some passion boiling inside his soul, when he's haranguing his students with his theories or courting his fiancée (Rose Hobart), he's like letting off the passion, a passion that comes from a tree we suspect to provide more rotten fruits. And Jekyll's speech allows him to verbally express what his performance induces, he believes we all have guilty thoughts and impulses, and maybe we're never as good as we're capable to resist the bad temptations, in the fight between good vs. evil, we are what we choose to be. There are several religious undertones, many people practice religion on a "thou shall not" basis, and even in Islamic culture, a bad action comes is a whisper from the devil. Jekyll is convinced of his power to separate between the two parts of one personality as you do with chemical products, in other words: he's playing God and displays one defining facet of his personality: hubris. And Hyde has nothing to do with it. Jekyll is strong-minded and so brave he resists the temptation by yielding to it and drinks his own potion. 1931 was the year of "Frankenstein", "Dracula" and there was no reason for "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" to be a visual disappointment. In the first mirror scene when Jekyll turns into Hyde, I expected some transitional cuts but it was so smoothly done I really felt he was changing. Animation can do it easily, but Malmounian came up with one of the most impressive special effects I've seen in an early movie. But the focus isn't just on the transition, the face also makes a statement about the nature of Hyde. The face develops a more tanned aspect and becomes hairier, more simian looking with huge teeth and large nostrils, which is not about the bestiality of Hyde but his Neanderthal look, he's not a beast but he's our ancestor, a man freed of the conveniences of good society and capable to express his lust and violence the hard way. He contradicts all these pompous Victorian men stuck in the hypocrisy of rigorous etiquette and reveal indirectly Jekyll's own impulses. When he desperately tries to convince his father-in-law to be (Halliwell Hobbes) to marry his daughter, in fact, he secretly wants to kick the old man's ass and go 'consume' his relationship. That's what's eating him. That's how I felt it anyway from March' performance.But how about a woman who literally gave herself to Jekyll? I'm speaking naturally of Ivy Pearson, the real heart of the film, played with emotional density by Myriam Hopkins. She falls in love with Jekyll after he rescued her from some brutish thugs and when she can see that he's attracted, she tempts him. Jekyll embraces her, kisses her but then pulls himself together and leaves her. Was it because of the providential intrusion of Pr. Lanyon (Holmes Helbert) or because he had to wait for Muriel for months? Whatever the reason is, there's name for the bitterness in Jekyll's mind: frustration. Jekyll can handle it but Hyde wouldn't have none of it. In a story all based on a metaphor, even the conflicting forces are symbolized through one character and they fantastically collide over the course of the film.Now, the directing deserves a mention. Yes, special effects do justice to the story and exude that Gothic atmosphere from Victorian or Dickensian London and the distorted ominous shadows in the fogs but Malmounian does more. Afire with the thrills of the story, he uses split screens many times to remind us the leitmotif of duplicity, some boiling water illustrates Jekyll's impulses and what can you say about the sight of Hopkins making her ankle swing and the image slowly fading out but still transposed with the face of March, playing like a ticking bomb. Fritz Lang couldn't have done it better.And 1931 wasn't just the peak of expressionist cinema, it was the pre-Code period, which is perhaps why this version is so superior to the remake. Myriam Hopkins personifies the sexual temptation Jekyll is describing and once he becomes Hyde, he gets at her as if she was the incarnation of this temptation, forgetting that it was Jekyll's goodness that attracted her. As if the duplicity wasn't just in the actions but the reactions, quite a comment on society's hypocrisy.Indeed, the story holds up very well today, as for the ending, well, we know hell is paved by the good intentions, Jekyll's were excellent, but hubris... no one plays God and gets away with it.

"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" from 1931, is the undisputed version of the short story from Robert Louis Stevenson. Only the John Barrymore version comes close. For sheer storytelling, direction, acting, make-up techniques and suspense - the 1931 film is in a class of its own. In the main roles, Frederic March is one of the few actors to win an Oscar for Best Actor in a horror film. It is rather seldom for an actor to even be nominated, let alone win.There was a good deal of censorship with this film, which is why there was a delay in its release. For years, the only version available was the one that ran for 80 minutes. Some of the slightly sadistic scenes between Hyde and Ivy were either trimmed or censored altogether. Most of these have been restored. Also, scenes shot of a child being trampled underfoot by Hyde were removed (a damn good thing as well).On DVD, this masterpiece can be enjoyed at its full length of 91 minutes.

This is a great movie. It is one of the best horror movie ever made. Dr. Jekyll discovers man has two souls. A good soul and an evil soul. He tries to divide to two souls. He creates a formula that turns him into a monster that is his evil self. It starts to take him over. Do not think that because this movie is old that it is not scary. It is one of the scariest movies ever made. Based on one of the best horror stories ever told. This movie is a must see. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. This movie is very intense. It is one of the best horror movie ever. I need more lines. And I am running out of things to say.

(Halloween Horror Reviews #17)It is hard to believe that such a refined and dynamic film as this came out of this early period in horror. The harsh emotions, the creepy imagery and sets, all massively ahead of their time. The themes and ideas of the novel remain respectfully intact here, nowhere near as diluted as they would have been expected to be.Fredric March is truly incredible as both Jekyll and Hyde. The emotional range is stellar, the physical investment from the actor is truly admirable and quite spectacular. Miriam Hopkins also offers a chilling performance in her role, captivating the audience with her simple yet effective displays of fear and bewilderment. Between these two actors, the film becomes a powerhouse of great early sound acting and a real marvel to watch 82 years later. The supporting actors also do a fine job, but are ultimately overlooked and passed over by the main stars.The set design and lighting are both also stellar, perhaps some of the best examples of such things from the early sound era of horror. The lamp lit streets, the chaotic laboratory and the jolly pub, these are all great sets and give the film a vibrant charm of its own.In conclusion, this is a near perfect film and an outstanding accompaniment to the classics of Universal. A sadly often overlooked gem here.