|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
#1
02-17-2004, 11:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
dr jekyl and hyde 1941 version
anyone seen this? is it worth seeing? it has a pg rating which sorta puts me off, but then again its old so i cant judge it on the rating alone.
__________________
your dependence on hardware really amuses me, Bough. ive been dropped into the kalahari desert with no more than a toothbrush and a packet of sherman lemons, and i still made it to bulawayo before ramadan. 
|
|
#2
02-21-2004, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stick with the 1931 Paramount version with Fredic March. Or even better yet, get the original. The 1920 movie with John Barrymore. It's silent, but deadly. The 1941 version has Spencer Tracy as the good Dr., and he just doesn't pull it off.
__________________
I Am Legend
|
|
#3
03-04-2004, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I go with the 31 March version; it has a great roving camera and, visually, is as good as anything Universal was doing at the time. The opening POV pan to the mirror was exceptionally clever for the period. Never have been much of a Spencer Tracy fan, and in the Barrymore version you can see big John get so excited during the transformation scene that he throws his fake fingernails. His performance was all the rave back in the day, but is now pretty laughable.
Aren't the March and Tracy versions available now on a double-feature DVD? With a Bugs Bunny cartoon, no less.
|
 |
|
|
