New York City, Dr. Richard Jacks is a creator of perfumes. He spends all of his days try to invent the next best thing in the industry. His girlfriend, Sarah, sometimes gets pushed to the ... See full summary »
In the Fifteenth Century, France is a defeated and ruined nation after the One Hundred Years War against England. The fourteen years old farm girl Joan of Arc claims to hear voices from ... See full summary »
Francis L. Sullivan
Old friends Ward and Phillip both become smitten with Phillip's mother's attractive young secretary Stella. But Stella marries Phillip and stands by him as his behavior becomes more and ... See full summary »
Young Kerstin Norbäck lives in a small town. She has a relationship with a sailor, but when she tries to leave him, he shoots her. She survives and begins a new life in Stockholm. There she... See full summary »
Funfair worker Valdemar is unknowingly the illegitimate son of a rich landowner, colonel Von Brede. The colonel knows and employs Valdemar as his stable master. The colonel has a young and ... See full summary »
Dr. Jekyll believes good and evil exist in everyone. Experiments reveal his evil side, named Hyde. Experience teaches him how evil Hyde can be: he kills Ivy who earlier expressed interest in Jekyll and Sir Charles, Jekyll's fiancée's father. Written by
Ed Stephan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
A true classic. The best version of the story. Tracy at his Best
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.
36 of 50 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?