n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

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.

Alongside Sherlock Holmes and James Bond, Robert Louis Stevenson's novella The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a work that has spawned many screen adaptations, yet predates both, the first of which dating as far back as 1908. Widely considered one of, if not the best of the bunch, John S. Robertson's seminal 1920 proto-horror classic is mostly remembered for one thing above all others. Played by an endlessly captivating John Barrymore, the characters of Jekyll and more importantly Hyde, are brought into—or returned to—existence with contrasting shades of elegance and pure ham-fisted grotesque in a performance that many point to as Barrymore's first 80 minutes of brilliance. Relying on little to no makeup for some of Hyde's appearances, the actor merely uses his face as a means of creeping the hell out of you as he stares enigmatically through the lens with eyes watering with madness and depravity. Simply put, it's the stuff of nightmares and silent-horror gold.Outside of these murky, lusty, greasy scenes featuring Barrymore's crazed shuffle and psychotic debaucheries however, there's only a few other aspects of the film which draw quite the same amusement and/or repulsion. Overbaugh's photography does well in capturing said scenes, often sticking on Barrymore's close-ups for long periods of time, his face serving somewhat hauntingly as our only source of light in a sea of overwhelming shadow. There's also a great specials effects sequence involving a gargantuan spider crawling up the far-end of Jekyll's bed which, even now some 95 years later, is very strikingly uncomfortable to watch. Furthermore, set designs shake up the nihilistic, slimy pre- code undertones of the feature well enough, always maintaining a sense of darkness and gloom that pervades Jekyll's world, though perhaps not quite as convincing as Griffith's depiction of Victorian London in Broken Blossoms. Overall though, there's a sense that without Barrymore, there wouldn't be much left to pick at here. Perhaps it's a natural result of being all-too-familiar with the source material that the plot seems shallow and a bit lacklustre. But regardless of the reasoning, Robertson's version here is competent at best when John "the profile" Barrymore is either not present, or not being allowed to ham it up. It's more than worthy of a watch though, if only to enjoy the performance of its lead star. If you do, be sure to catch the newly restored blu-ray version released in 2004 which features a great Rodney Sauer score performed by the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra that mirrors the feature's action superbly.

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.

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