The Worst Film Ever

Sorry, this movie sucks

Fresh and Exciting

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" DVD I took from the library featured both the 1931 and 1941 version. To be honest, after finishing the two films, I didn't feel the need to watch any other version. Not that I thought the 1941 version broke any particular ground, but I said in my review that it was enhanced by the performance of Ingrid Bergman while undermined by the Hays Code. It was good but the 1931 version was the definite one as far as I was concerned.But I'm a movie trivia buff and checking on the list of memorable screen-characters nominated for the American Film Institute's Top 100 Heroes and Villains, I saw that both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde were nominated. But it was Fredric March' Hyde vs. John Barrymore's Jekyll, so there had to be something pretty heroic about Jekyll to deserve that spot and I wanted to make up my own mind. And given how slightly disappointed I was by the 1941 film, I thought maybe the 1920 version explored some realms omitted by the 1931, maybe that the rise of the talkies didn't permit or made obsolete. I knew I could easily find it on Youtube, so I watched it and I'm glad I did. It is perhaps one of the earliest classics of the horror genre (two years before "Nosferatu") and while made by a rather unknown director named Robertson but it features a very recognizable face from Golden Age buffs: John Barrymore, who's probably to American movies what Jean Marais was to French Cinema. By that I mean he probably possesses one of the best-looking male profiles I saw recently, of course, he's more than a pretty face. John Barrymore embodies through his performance as Jekyll the torment of a good man, Jekyll is a figure supposed to represent the uptight Victorian man, but it's not as a symbol as we feel sorry for him.In an era where men were supposed to hide their feelings and impulses, and maintain their facade of respectability while indulging to the darker calls of human soul, Jekyll is an abnormally decent man. He's presented as a 'philanthropist' by nature, because he's a doctor in medicine, but it's not just about his chosen professional path. This is a man who's innately good, who maintains an old repair shop at his own expenses to treat the poor people. He's a good man and not even devoured by ambition, one would think Mr. Carew already had the perfect son-in-law but the man couldn't believe a man was so good as he looked, his cynicism set up the story... and backfired at him.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 man also encourages the young chap to live his young age, and stop dedicating him time to the others, he quotes Oscar Wilde: "the best way to resist a temptation is yield to it". This plants in Jekyll's mind the idea of separating the two parts of the human soul, letting a man fulfill his worst desires while leaving the soul untouched. Quite fascinating to have a Jekyll about someone being ashamed from being 'too good'.But the merit of this "good" Jekyll is that he's about to become a real contrasting personality to his Mr. Hyde alter ego. Edward Hyde is basically as hideous and menacing as Jekyll looked good and romantic, and Hyde's face keeps on going more and more bestial looking until the final scene where he's a real monster of a man. The duplicity is powerfully suggested and makes the figure of Jekyll a real tragic one. In both the 1931 and 1941 version, the tragic figure was Ivy Pearson, the 'bad company' woman, but this one gives more latitude and substance to the figure of Jekyll, maybe to show that a man can be victim of his impulses or victims of his own attempts to resist them.The film's power totally lies on John Barrymore's performance and the other characters are eye candy but only valuable players at his periphery, Nina Naldi (said to be the female Valentino) plays the woman of exotic charm and Martha Mansfield (who died tragically as a freak accident) is the obligatory female woman but the real arc belongs to Barrymore. It is also worth noticing that, being a silent film, the film provides more ominous sights of Victorian London, perhaps because they didn't need to "stage" it in 1920 and the texts are more impacting than all the speeches from the other films. Again like many old silent movies, the looks or sounds depend on the versions, I watched one without the sepia tones and with the organ music, but I don't think they were integral to the film's enjoyment. I still consider the 1931 one to be the best, but this one comes closer.

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.

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.

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.