Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920)

Perfect cast and a good story

Best movie of this year hands down!

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I've always thought that the popularization of Sigmund Freud's theory of the ego and the id helped directly with the popularity of Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde. Nowhere will you see it better expressed without voice than by John Barrymore in the silent screen version of the classic.In fact no player since Richard Mansfield who originated the acting role on stage was better acclaimed than Barrymore up to that time. Even without the use of his magnificent vocal instrument along with some superb makeup he carries off both the decent scientist Jekyll and the beast within he calls Hyde. No accident Stevenson chose that name. Hyde is something we do with that part of our nature.This is a short feature film for its time, still all the elements of the story are contained. The women in Jekyll/Hyde's life are Marian Mansfield as the decent girl he's engaged to and Nita Naldi as the Music Hall entertainer who Hyde tortures beyond endurance.One of John Barrymore's best silent films. Do not miss this version of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde.

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.

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.

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.