Rating: 
Summary: By far the best version of the Stevenson classic!
Review: Although silent, the John Barrymore version is the best one of the lot in my opinion. He is ultra-creepy as Mr. Hyde. It is also interesting because he gets more grungy and disgusting with every change. By contorting his face and body, Barrymore gives you a skin-crawling glare just after he kills. It'll give you nightmares for weeks to come. If you want to see the best version on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this is it!
Rating: 
Summary: 1920 FILM SHARP AND CLEAR ON DVD!
Review: Barrymore's stunning metamorphosis from kindly Dr. Jekyll to hideous Mr. Hyde is remarkably amazing in that he accomplished the effect largely through acting technique - because of that fact, he was justly proud of this performance. This antique curio is fascinating and classic video buffs should enjoy watching this well-preserved account of the 38 year-old legend acting up a storm!
Rating: 
Summary: Barrymore shows genius
Review: Brilliant adaptation of Stevenson's short story. While not true to the book, it maintains enough elements to be recognizable. Barrymore is fantastic. His transformation into Hyde is spine-tingling and completely realistic, especially considering that it is initially accomplished without makeup.The worst part of this film is having to watch Martha Mansfield attempt to act. She's not very good at emoting ala Kevin Costner, which is a very unfortunate drawback in silent films.
Rating:
Summary: Significantly Dated In Style But A Landmark Nonetheless
Review: Directed by John S. Robertson and starring matinee idol John Barrymore in the dual title role, 1920's DR. JECKYLL & MR. HYDE is sometimes described as the "first American horror film." That description is more than a little problematic, but whether it was or it wasn't, DR. JECKYLL AND MR. HYDE certainly put the horror genre on the Hollywood map. Whether or not you happen to like this particular version of the famous Robert Louis Stevenson tale will depend a great deal upon your tolerance for the change in acting styles that has occurred between the silent and the modern era. Some silent stars--Lillian Gish, Ramon Novarro, and Louise Brooks leap to mind--were remarkably subtle and worked to create a new style of acting appropriate to the screen, but most actors played very broadly. John Barrymore, considered one of the greatest actors of his day, is among the latter, and was noted for his larger-than-life performances on stage. He brings that expansiveness to the screen, where it inevitably feels "too big" to the modern viewer. At the time, Barrymore's transformation into the evil Mr. Hyde was considered shocking in its realism, but today these celebrated scenes are more likely to induce snickers than thrills--as will much of Hyde's make-up, which seems excessive to the modern sensibility. Even so, there are aspects of the film which survive quite well, scenes in which one is permitted a glimpse into the power this film once had. For Barrymore's Hyde is, for all his bizarre ugliness, a remarkably seductive creature--and Barrymore uses his hands and eyes in a remarkable way. One feels the sexual pull as much as one feels the revulsion. The 1920 DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE is available in several VHS and DVD releases. Some of these are quite good, but I particularly recommend the Kino version, which offers a good picture, good soundtrack, and several interesting bonuses. Other release versions should be approached with caution, and you should avoid releases by the likes of Alpha or Madacy as you would the plague. They may seem attractive in terms of price, but frankly... in this instance you get what you pay for. GFT, Amazon Reviewer
Rating: 
Summary: Madacy = below 0
Review: First you're attracted by the price, and then, if you already got the misfortune of acquiring Madacy's product(s), you know it's not even worth that price, since they usually manage to get the worst print they can fish from garbage AND then succeed in making it worse. The fact they're not yet out of business is only the proof for garbage lovers (I've been conned twice, and that's more than enough) being innumerable.
Rating:
Summary: Barrymore Is A Genious
Review: I think that John Barrymore shows the best portrayl as both Dr. Jekyll and especially, Mr. Hyde. I enjoyed watching John as he did his magnificant transformations from good to evil. I was also very impressed to see that John Barrymore didn't use any makeup or cosmetic help for the first time he turned into Mr. Hyde. Instead, he messed up his hair and bulged his eyes. If you are looking for the best interpretation of the Stevenson novel, this is the one!
Rating:
Summary: John Barrymore in the first classic American Horror film
Review: In this 1920 silent film version of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic horror story "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," John Barrymore shows why he was considered one of the greatest actors of his generation (a reputation that is not especially enhanced by what little film work remains of Barrymore's from his period of his career). Pay attention to how little makeup or effects Barrymore uses to make his transformation from the genteel Dr. Henry Jekyll into the monstrous Mr. Hyde, because basically he just greases up his hair and goes bug-eyed (I know Spencer Tracy wanted to do the same sort of thing when he played the role decades later, but he was not allowed to do so by the studio). Ironically, it is as Dr. Jekyll, horrified by what he has become because of his grandiose experiments, that is the stronger half of Barrymore's performances. In both cases you can tell this was an actor trained for the classical stage. Martha Mansfield plays Millicent Carew, the good doctor's beloved, while Nita Naldi plays Miss Gina, the Italian dance-hall singer who first wakens the savage Mr. Hyde. This silent version of the film is of more importance from a historical standpoint than from an artistic standpoint, since Barrymore gave the American horror film some much needed legitimacy by playing this part (Lon Chaney was still five years away from making "The Phantom of the Opera"). WARNING: This is one of two 1920 versions of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" produced in 1920. However the other, which starred Sheldon Lewis is the title roles, is a lesser film in all regards.
Rating:
Summary: John Barrymore in the first classic American Horror film
Review: In this 1920 silent film version of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic horror story "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," John Barrymore shows why he was considered one of the greatest actors of his generation (a reputation that is not especially enhanced by what little film work remains of Barrymore's from his period of his career). Pay attention to how little makeup or effects Barrymore uses to make his transformation from the genteel Dr. Henry Jekyll into the monstrous Mr. Hyde, because basically he just greases up his hair and goes bug-eyed (I know Spencer Tracy wanted to do the same sort of thing when he played the role decades later, but he was not allowed to do so by the studio). Ironically, it is as Dr. Jekyll, horrified by what he has become because of his grandiose experiments, that is the stronger half of Barrymore's performances. In both cases you can tell this was an actor trained for the classical stage. Martha Mansfield plays Millicent Carew, the good doctor's beloved, while Nita Naldi plays Miss Gina, the Italian dance-hall singer who first wakens the savage Mr. Hyde. This silent version of the film is of more importance from a historical standpoint than from an artistic standpoint, since Barrymore gave the American horror film some much needed legitimacy by playing this part (Lon Chaney was still five years away from making "The Phantom of the Opera"). WARNING: This is one of two 1920 versions of "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" produced in 1920. However the other, which starred Sheldon Lewis is the title roles, is a lesser film in all regards.
Rating:
Summary: The birth of the horror genre - a must for collectors
Review: It may be surprising to audiences with modern movie-going sensibilities, given both the absence of well-established genre conventions and the obvious limitations imposed by the absence of sound, that most of the more prominent early movies of genre interest are rather good. The 1920 version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, directed by John S. Robertson, for example, remains a solid entry among the many film versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's classic tale, arguably only eclipsed by Rouben Mamoulian's 1932 version starring Fredric March (mainly because of the latter's unintentional comedy). John Barrymore, originating the role of the ill-fated gentleman doctor and his beastly alter ego, is on top form, overcoming the limitations of silence with some superb physical character work. Proving the adage rather early though that Hollywood only knows about four good stories, at least six more versions of the story would be filmed before the advent of sound in 1928.
Rating:
Summary: For what it represents more than JB
Review: OK; two things to remember; first, as someone else pointed out, silent actors tended to be over the top a lot because they had to make up for the lack of sound. Virtually every silent star, even the true greats, fell into this trap. Second, John Barrymore, being a theatrical actor, would naturally be even a bit more hammy that the usual silent actor. That beside the point, the 1920 DJMH holds up well as an early horror film, with the transformation scene being nothing short of eerie, considering this film was made 5 years before Lon's Phantom of the Opera, often considered the pinnacle of silent make-up.
Barrymore achieves the Hyde look largely via facial manipulation and enlongated fingers, and his sinister aura is clearly felt, even when he's munching on a piece of scenery. The whole "feel" of the film, however is near-perfect, and Nita Naldi, almost 90 years after the fact, is still sexy in a dance-hall-singer sort of way. And yes, teh title cards could've been a bit more frequent and consistent. But these are minor things considering the whole. What's sad is the state of deterioration the film is in; it's not unwatchable by any means, but the quality is far below what some other films of the era look like. Still, Kino did a remarkable job. The extras are great as well, though it'd be nice to have the Lewis and 1911 versions on one DVD. Definitely a must-own
|
