Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

JohnHowardReid Director: John S. Robertson. Screenplay: Clara S. Beranger. Based on the 1886 novel The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson. Photography: Roy F. Overbaugh. Art director: Robert M. Haas. Set decorator: Charles O. Seessel. Producer: Adolph Zukor.A Paramount-Artcraft picture, copyright 18 March 1920 by Famous Players-Lasky Corp. New York opening at the Rivoli: 28 March 1920. 67 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Do-gooder Dr Jekyll is tempted by man-of-the-world Sir George Carew to explore the flesh-pots of licentiousness. However, not wanting his depravity to be traced home, he invents a drug which transforms him into the malevolent Edward Hyde.COMMENT: I take a keen interest in this one as I am a direct descendant of Robert Stevenson (the grandfather of RLS). RLS's short novels have always been an extremely popular subject with movie-makers. In fact, there are so many credited and uncredited versions of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, it would take more than one full-length book to do them all justice. For example, less than a month after this one was released, Louis B. Mayer unveiled yet another movie adaptation, this time with Sheldon Lewis in the title role. However, despite the abundance of films on the ground, there are really only three versions that most people remember today: John Barrymore's, Fredric March's and Spencer Tracy's. This Barrymore incarnation was available (2004) in an extremely fine VHS restoration in the Republic Pictures Silent Classics home video series. Ton fact, the whole film is so meticulously tinted, it provokes gasps of wonder from people who are used to seeing washed-out snips from silent movies that completely fail to capture the original beauty and artistry of the cinematography. The interior sets have a reddish sepia glow that is almost three-dimensional in effect. Deep purple effectively serves for night exteriors, while green does duty for daytime sequences. Although it runs only a "B" picture length of 67 minutes, this "Dr Jekyll" does not run short of production values. Allied with the lustrous photography, are sets and costumes to likewise marvel at. As for the direction, it maintains a high level of competent artistry without descending to arty effects. No, Dr Jekyll only falls short in the acting division. A contemporary critique in The New York Times sets forth the problem very plainly. On the one hand, we have John Barrymore, whom the anonymous New York Times reviewer praises to the skies. On the other side of the equation, stand the rest of the cast, whom The Times man opines let the side down badly. A modern audience, however, is most likely to form the exactly opposite opinion. It's Barrymore's performance that's way over the top, the rest of the players who make valiant efforts to keep the movie on an even keel (with the exception of the poorly made-up Cecil Clovelly whose role is too small to take much notice of anyway). Brandon Hurst delivers a particularly subtle study of the tempter, while Martha Mansfield seems far more sensitive and refined than either the March version's Rose Hobart or the Tracy version's Lana Turner, while Nita Naldi (in a much briefer role) runs rings around Miriam Hopkins and edges close to Ingrid Bergman.Barrymore should have been ideal, but he seems wrong right from the word, "Go!" Admittedly, he does bring off quite a few effects rather well, but mostly he hams away with an obviously self-satisfied delight in his own posturing and the limelight.

somejava I'm new to watching silents. This was actually my second watched. I viewed this with musical accompaniment that I believe was created in 2004. But don't hold me to that. I might be mistaken. I enjoyed John Barrymore's performance. I had heard that his was/is considered by many to be the best of all of the actors who played the part. I've not seen any of the other performances. But I would say that it might be true. He was very expressive and dramatic. And I'll add another thing. For any fans out there of Frank Zappa...this musical accompaniment sounds JUST LIKE something he would have composed for classical orchestra. I'm learning to enjoy these bygone eras of movie-making. Once in a while a good new movie will come out. But I'm discovering that there's a wealth of them waiting for me to discover. Made before I was born. Some LONG before I was born.

Rainey Dawn 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

skybrick736 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.