Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Truly Dreadful Film

Just so...so bad

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way

This scene occurs during a story being told by Nita Naldi - a flashback about a ring which was meant to contain poison. For some reason the scene was cut and the film was ruined. it appears in some prints and not others. Its crucial to the story because the ring has significance later on.The restored scene is of inferior quality and does not match the rest of the film.A man of princely fashion is lured to the table of a beautiful woman. Then his drink is switched with one in which the ring was used. A toast was made and the prince died thru poisoning. The Image disc has the scene I know that much.

Fairly incredible achievement in filmmaking for this early date carried largely by the excellent performance by John Barrymore. Like many silent films it is not the most literal rendering of time and place, the story takes place in a sort of whimsical fantasy London that doesn't seem to be any particular real life incarnation of the city (note the outfits of the servants and policemen). Barrymore's Mr. Hyde is one of the best to ever darken the screen. He created a timeless nefarious baddie that looks incredibly twisted and cool even today. Martha Mansfield looks like an Alphonse Mucha drawing come to life as Jekyll's love interest Millicent Carew. Sadly the love story as well as many other plot elements are not as well developed as other feature film adaptations, although this may be a limitation of the silent medium. Specifically the reasoning for Jekyll turning into Hyde didn't really make much sense to me. It simplifies the story into a tale of the corruption of a promising young man, rather than a warning against tampering with the nature of the soul.With the movie now going on 100 years old it's fairly amazing that it still stands as one of the best and most entertaining movies made of the Robert Louis Stevenson story.

I like to see films in which actors give their very best performance. For fans of John Barrymore, this is it.Much of Barrymore's acting skills and charm are lost in his earlier talkies (e.g., "Dinner at Eight", "Rasputin and the Empress"), and his later talkies showcase some excellent acting but the physicality is gone, dissipated ("The Great Man Votes"). Only in the plays ("Romeo and Juliette", "20th Century") do we have a hint of his skills, so it is in the silent era that we need to go looking for his finest performances and this film is my favorite.There isn't much here except Barrymore, although for a 1920s film the production values and the special effects are good. For silent horror films I prefer "Nosferatu" (1922) and "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925).The best Jekyll and Hyde, IMO is the 1931 version with Frederic March, who obviously borrowed from Barrymore for his own performance, which won him an Oscar.

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