Saturday, July 26, 2014

I'll show you what horror means.

If the sun never set, would we all be better people? Not in a logical, scientific way, silly goose. I mean, like, would we all have a nicer, less impulsive and reckless existence? While most of us are sort of operating at a 6 or a 7 when the sun's up, why does nighttime unleash the Kraken? Sure, we drink, fight, kill, and f--k during the day, but multiply it all by nine hundred when the moon's out, right? Is our nighttime self who we really are, or is it simply the break we allow ourselves from the rigidity of the day? With so many unanswered (and stupid) questions, perhaps I should consult a physician...

Trust me, Hyde looks much more menacing in the movie.
This guy just looks like a douche.
In 1931's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the idea of man's dual nature is the catalyst for destruction and mayhem in one of horror's oldest stories. While someone like Dracula is a refined monster of the night, Mr. Hyde is man at his most primitive. He cavorts about aimlessly, looking to start trouble and get laid. He's not quite the irrational monster I imagined him to be (think the Hulk, if he weren't strong and a huge dick), but he's also not as enviable as I thought, either. He's actually a real bastard.

Originally only stemming from an elixir created by the brilliant (and charming) Dr. Jekyll, it doesn't take long for Mr. Hyde to show up whenever he damn well feels like it. And much like anybody with a bad haircut, intense, caveman-like brow and a propensity for wearing capes, there isn't a party he's really welcome at. Eventually he falls for (read: kidnaps) a lovely young woman named Ivy Pearson (the super hot Miriam Hopkins) and ruins her life, and pretty much everyone else's, too. Jekyll claims he can control the beast, but it's going to take more than good intentions to do so.

For a flick from the early thirties, I found Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to be an impressive feat, likely able to engage contemporary audiences both from a storytelling standpoint and surprisingly, a technical one as well. Director Rouben Mamoulian keeps the story moving quickly with a variety of impressive sequences and special effects, not to mention a Best Actor-winning performance from Fredric March. The transformation from Jekyll to Hyde is handled exceedingly well (even if Hyde ultimately looks pretty silly), as are the countless POV shots, too.

Speaking of an infinite number of POV shots, the Yays and Boos have been using my laptop, and let's just say these two know nothing of clearing their history. I don't know who wants to watch pregnant women do that. Ever. Well, except Mr. Hyde - 'cause that dude's a freak.

Yaaaaaaaay!
  • The score is pretty awesome. Incredibly ominous, right out of the gate.
  • They're a bit goofy, but some of the split-screen wipes are very well done.
  • Ah, the things guys say to get laid. Here, it's we can live on love! And strawberries!
  • What's the opposite of a pimp? Whatever it is, that's Jekyll, as he saves the day for a lady of the evening/exotic dancer, instead of say, punching her in the gut.
  • And the reward she provides was pretty steamy, I must admit. Was this movie the first example of sideboob in cinematic history? Not only that, but she had some real nice yams, seeeeee. Real nice.
  • So, um, Variety Music Hall? This place is fantastic. This is where I'm going to hold my bachelor party, if I ever get married. Again. In 1931.
  • Jekyll's lady, Muriel Carew (played by Rose Hobart), is a shockingly nice woman. She gives Jekyll countless chances and stands by him longer than anyone. Actually....maybe too long?
  • And finally, the batshit crazy ending. Hyde is wrecking future father-in-laws, droves of butlers, and just about anyone who crosses his path. He Jackie Chans all over the damn place, before somehow barricading himself in Jekyll's office. Phew. Seems like everything is going to be okay now, right? Right?
Booooooo!
  • Muriel's dad, for the most part, is a real dick. He wants them to wait to marry till it's his anniversary day? What the shit?
  • It took this movie and 34 years on the planet to get the name Hyde. Honestly, that's the most obvious name ever...but I didn't even sniff the lame wordplay in the least til I saw this one.
  • The way Hyde eats is horrific. Just awful, really. He's like an uglier Joey Chestnut.
  • Strike me pink! I like this saying, I'm just booing the fact that if I actually said it I would be struck. In the face.
  • Hey, look. It's a lovely bird in a tree at the park. Aw, nature is so great. Oh, hold on. There's a cat in this tree as well. Yep. It ate the f--king bird. Nature is a cruel beeyotch, it would appear. Subtle, too.
  • Hyde pretty much abuses Ivy whenever he gets the chance, and that shit ain't cool. But one time, she actually breaks free and runs....to the couch.
  • And finally, the biggest boo maybe ever, making me feel illiterate. Hopefully you're not like me, and haven't been saying Jekyll entirely wrong your whole stupid life. According to this movie, it's Jeee-kull, not something that rhymes with freckle. Ain't that some shit? But honestly, if I ever hear someone saying it correctly, I'm going to transform into a bootleg Teen Wolf and probably punch them square in the junk.
Holy crap. It's almost 3:30 in the morning here. Can you believe I'm up working on a post for a movie that no one has ever seen? Absurd, right? This is boring and pointless. This isn't me, at all. This is...this is...


This is daytime stuff.  

18 comments:

  1. I laughed at how you filed this post. I've never seen this one (shocker) so I learned a few things from this review! Jeee-kyl? Really?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That might be the first time anyone has learned anything from this site! Nice.

      But...sadly, yes, it's true. It's really pronounced Jee-kyll. Which makes me want to punch something in the face.

      Delete
  2. Omg I have been meaning to watch this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should give it a shot, Candice. And let me know what you think if you do!

      Delete
  3. I actually did see this way back when I was a wee lad. Don't remember much about it, especially not any side boob. Sounds like it's time for a rewatch. Not because of the side boob. Alone. The Joey Chestnut-like eating habits are a draw, as well. Great review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Wendell. It's been two weeks and I don't really remember a Hell of a lot about this movie, but I do recall the sideboob. There was also some first-person garter removal that was oddly alluring. You know, if you're into that kind of thing. I mean, me? Way too classy to salivate over that kind of stuff. Way too classy.

      Also, I think this would have traumatized me as a kid - really. Mr. Hyde is a f--king wacko.

      Delete
  4. Terrific review! I love your gift with words. Somehow I have never read this book or seen the movie -- I think I might make a point of doing both this summer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha, thanks.

      I actually would like to check out the book myself, too. We should compare notes! You do take notes, right? Please tell me I'm not the only one...with a journal...at the movies.

      *runs and slams door*

      Delete
  5. BAH! I love this. Once again, your reviews are just...there are no words.

    Do you ever sleep though? I mean, EVER?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no words, it's true. Well, there are, but how many synonyms are there for overwhelmingly shitty. Not enough, I'm sure.

      Kidding aside, thanks man. Remember...all of these classics? That's because of you.

      And sleep? No. Not really. Though I'd really like to.

      Delete
  6. Mr. Hyde looks more like a werewolf in that photo! Love that you're watching more and more classic movies, its about time I did too... I might as well start with this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You totally should, asrap. I'd be up for some of your 'in a nutshell' style reviews. Definitely.

      But...hmm. How are you going to see movies that came out sixty years ago...before I can?. I don't think I'm smart enough to create a logical answer....so I'll just wave my hands around ape-style and hope that works.

      Delete
  7. Wait, tell me more about this Hyde wordplay. Am I getting it? I'm not sure I'm getting it.

    Jee-kyll??? Duuude! We had to read this book a few years ago for school and it f--king sucked. It's impossible to read under sleep deprivation, which the natural state for students (damn you, teachers! I'm looking at //you//, mr. brown!) I always figured from how Hyde looks and the year it was made that this film sucked just as much, but you've got me thinking. So many yays, so few boos... hmmmmm. Can it be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm telling you...I DIDN'T GET IT. I thought Hyde was a fine English chap...not, you know, literally what Jekyll is doing. I mean, Jeekyll.

      No, no. Don't make me the reason you watch this. I enjoyed this one enough because I'm not 14 and a half years old. You? You'd probably throw a shoe threw the screen. Or a discarded copy of the book.

      Delete
  8. Can you believe I've never seen this movie? I've been meaning to watch it for years, but for one reason or another I never did. My fiancee has a slight case of mufti-personality disorder, as a matter of fact before she told me that I thought she had a twin sister. They look the same but their behavior and moods are completely the opposite. It's a quirk I've learned to live with over the years

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I can fully understand that you've never seen it (I'm surprised so many people have, actually), I simply can't wrap my mind around the second half of your comment. Are you messing with me, or are you serious? I'm very intrigued either way.

      Delete