Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1920) - Drama, Horror, Sci-Fi

Hohum Score



Dr. Henry Jekyll experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself.

Director: John S. Robertson
Stars: John Barrymore, Martha Mansfield
Length: 82 Minutes
PG Rating: N/A
Reviews: 9 out of 67 found boring (13.43%)

One-line Reviews (33)

The camera is static throughout making the film a little visually boring.

Quite theatrical to say the least, but what's amazing is Barrymore's constant jerking of his body with his hair flopping about before the closeup of that hideous facial expression, which must have been quite intense for 1920 audiences.

horror film starring John Barrymore, still comes off as boring and frustrating, not to mention more than a bit hokey.

Static composition adds to the problem of the first third, which is very slow and hokey.

The film felt long and slow, and had only fleeting moments of interest (among them the famed "spider" scene, the ruthless killing of Carew, and an interesting ending).

The film is still very enjoyable, has a good pace and fine editing.

It's atmosphere feels dark and the Mr. Hyde character makes sure that the movie always remains unpredictable as well as both tense and scary.

John Barrymore's hideous transformations – most memorably the one in the presence of Sir George – are endlessly thrilling and engaging, a testament to the excellent talents of the actor.

once it gets going it is very compelling and engrossing.

If it's available, try to find one with a better score--the music I heard was just very flat and uninspiring.

Bravura performance, but boring camera.

Quite fascinating to have a Jekyll about someone being ashamed from being 'too good'.

However, back in 1920, Barrymore still had his looks and his acting ability as both Jekyll and Hyde cannot be doubted in this involving and stunning adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's oft-filmed tale.

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.

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.

Trouble is, his mates think he's boring.

The film opens terribly slow and you have to wait long and patiently before it gets to the essence of Stevenson's legendary writings, namely Dr. Jekyll's growing obsession to bring out the dark side that hides in ever human being.

Still, I prefer the 1931 film, only in that it's more disturbing as well as compelling with its psychosexual themes.

But sadly the camerawork is very dull.

This allows what might be an outlandish and didactic plot and premise to unfold instead as intriguing and universally resonant.

The development of the film is slow and deliberate.

It was fascinating to watch the two female leads too, Martha Mansfield and Nita Naldi were stunning in appearance.

Great use is made of the occasional camera trick (such as the evocative scene of the imaginary spider in Jekyll's bedroom).

So it's during a banal dinner conversation that the father-in-law raises the idea of the battling between good and bad self, the metaphor used is left or right hand, just because he doesn't use one for writing or eating, doesn't mean he can't ever use it.

The spider scene was memorable but overall the storytelling was rather choppy and dull.

Based on one of the best horror novels ever this movie is one the most intense movie of all.

Toward the beginning, Dr. Jekyll is accused of being a studious bore, and he needed to have a life.

The best I can say for it is it shows why movies like "Nosferatu" and "The Golem" are so great, because they push the envelope in ways that are still startling and engaging.

Some of it is rather slow, and not helped by some sequences that could've been shorter or excised.

It's well thought out and handled and provides the movie with an impressive and memorable ending, which might also come quite unexpected, since it's not an happy one.

But well worth watching seminal stuff especially if you're interested in seeing the best film (that survives anyhow) from 1920.

Gripping .

It shows us that all the cinematic elements were in place to produce a genuinely engrossing great horror film by 1920.