Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

*Please note* - This version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is, in fact, a silent-era picture. It is now nearly 100 years old. If you choose to judge this picture by today's "in-your-face" standards of total over-the-top horror & gore, then, to be sure, you are going to be mighty disappointed with what you see here.But if you have an appreciation for film history, and can value this film's story in its understated form, and can forgive it for all of its obvious flaws and faults, then, yes, this old relic will definitely be worth your while to watch.From my point of view - I was actually quite impressed with the creepy, eerie and sinister atmosphere that prevailed in this production. Now, I would certainly never say that this was a great film. But, with that aside - I'll bet you that, upon its initial release, back in 1920, it must have scared the socks off of many of the viewers in the audience.

Silent film classic adaption of Robert Louis Stevenson's timeless story of a respected doctor who creates a formula that will allow his baser nature to emerge. Upon taking the formula, the righteous Dr. Jekyll transforms into the evil and ugly Mr. Hyde. Nothing good comes from that, let me tell you. The 1931 sound version with Fredric March will always be my favorite and the 1941 version with Spencer Tracy also holds appeal for me. This one holds up quite well given when it was made (nearly a century ago!) and the obvious datedness that comes with that. John Barrymore is the whole show, giving a vivid performance that carries the film. The part is perfectly suited to an actor like Barrymore, who had a very physical theatricality about him. In many of his talking pictures, he would often give performances full of lots of wild facial expressions and melodramatic gestures. In those films, it was often seen as ham acting but in the silent era, that sort of thing was a definite plus.It's difficult sometimes to view an older film (especially a silent one) objectively and imagine how amazing it must have been for its time. The sets and effects here are excellent, although Barrymore deserves a lot of the credit for his facial contortions that made Hyde look so ghastly. The first scene where Jekyll transforms into Hyde is a classic that many people have seen in one place or another, even if they never saw this movie. And what about that creepy spider? I recommend if you're about to watch this for the first time, watch it at night with no distractions. It will certainly help put you in the mood and perhaps combat some of the creakiness that the film has due to its age.

Jekyll & Hyde 1920 really is a good silent horror film. I would not say all silent films are good just because they are the first moving pictures but this film is actually GOOD! John Barrymore really plays both roles well. Even in a silent film J. Barrymore manages to show two completely different personalities without one word being heard. It's in the acting ability and not in any spoken words. There are plenty of "talkie" films where one person plays two different personalities and it's not the words they use but their acting ability that can pull it off - like J. Barrymore did in this film.The movie is visually stimulating - the whole movie has an eerie look and feel to it as it should. I love the costuming and sets in this film very creepy! Jekyll & Hyde is a great story to begin with and this film does the story justice! I highly recommend this movie to film buffs and for those that love a good classic horror film.8.5/10

Being a twenty-five year old, it's really hard to imagine what it would be like viewing this movie in a 1920's theater. I appreciate Robertson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as a tremendous advancement in horror cinema. For being over an hour and a half long the movie held my interest but there is only so much I can take out of a film like this, hence the 5/10 rating. John Barrymore's performance was spectacular, he had a typical Doctor look and his Mr. Hyde was down-right creepy. Some of the camera angles of Hyde at the end of the film were very effective making up for a lack of a transformation scene. It was fascinating to watch the two female leads too, Martha Mansfield and Nita Naldi were stunning in appearance. While watching each variation of films, which include the 1912, 1913 and 1920 versions, it's interesting to see what each film does differently. Understanding how popular Robertson's film is, I'd have to say it's on par and give it the same rating with Henderson's 1912 film, which are both worth seeking out as a fan of the novel or curious in silent horror films.