Don't listen to the negative reviews

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

This is the third of 3 silent era versions of this movie I'm seeing--not counting "Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pride" of course. The other two films, made in 1912 and 1913 were both relatively short, but this film directed by John S. Robertson runs at an hour and twenty two minutes, which in my opinion is a little too long. Some parts of this movie aren't really necessary--I'm not really sure what Miss Gina had to do with the rest of the action and other parts with Mr. Hyde seemed like padding. Then again, I suppose they overdid it a bit just to show off Hyde's physical appearance. As in the other versions, Jekyll here has a girlfriend. Only--and this is interesting--she is the daughter of Sir George Carew, the man who Jekyll later murders as Hyde. He is portrayed as a bad influence to Jekyll and a temptation. In the end, Jekyll can't resist and follows Carew. As a result, he turns into Hyde--and this Hyde here looks amazing, with straight black hair, long nails and fingers, and a lump on his head. The appearance of him is in fact very good and it does seem as though John Barrymore--the actor who played both Jekyll and Hyde--was two different people. Hyde starts then causing trouble and weakening Jekyll's ability to control him, and disastrous results occur.Mostly, the movie is very slow-moving and has some unnecessary parts--what Hyde had to do with two random ladies in a bar is beyond me. However, this is not to say there aren't some good moments: having Jekyll transform into Hyde in front of Carew before murdering him is a nice addition. The ending, also very interesting--Jekyll's girlfriend never actually knows the whole truth. It clearly strays from the novella quite a bit--but then, it improves the story too. Hyde is well portrayed and is probably the better version of all 3 of them.Padded certainly, but otherwise a good movie. Just watch the 49 minute version instead, if you can.

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.

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.