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 ****
Review of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
