Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a great horror movie. It is very scary. It is one of scariest movies you will ever see. Great acting. Great story line. Great special effect. This movie is very intense. It is a true horror classic. This is a great movie. See it. It is a must see. I need more lines and I am running out of things to say. This is a great movie. Great movie great movie great movie great movie. Do not miss this movie if you find it. One of greatest horror movie ever made. Best on one of the best horror stories ever told. This movie will give you goosebumps. If you like really scary movies. Then you need to see this movie. Very scary very scary.

Bonehead-XL I remember seeing a documentary on classic horror once that said, during the silent era, there was something like fifty different adaptations of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" made. The most famous of which is, no doubt, the 1920 version starring John Berrymore. The 1913 version starring King Baggot is… Not.At only twenty-seven minutes, the movie condenses an all ready pretty short novel even further. It makes two of the biggest sins a silent film can make: Over-reliance on title cards and major overacting. Major plot elements, such as Hyde committing evil during the night and Jekyll loosing control of his transformation, are brushed over in intertitles. King Baggot overacts wildly, most notable during the transformation scenes. Hyde is portrayed, not through elaborate make-up or subtle acting cues, but by the actor smearing some shoe polish under his eyes, making a maniacal grin, and walking around crouched on his knees. As you can imagine the affect is far from menacing.The film introduces a love interest, though she doesn't get much development. Hyde's acts of evil seem limited to picking a fight in a bar, jumping on random people in the street, and hiding behind trees. Overall, the film isn't very memorable or impressive. I suspect, if its public domain status hadn't allowed it on to the Youtubes and such, it would be totally forgotten.Despite all of this, the film is, quite unintentionally, technically the first Universal Monster movie. It was co-directed and produced by Carl Laemmle, the studio's founder and father to the son mostly responsible for creating the Universal Monster brand. Therefore its inclusion here and probably the only reason anybody much talks about it anymore.

MartinHafer This is a hard film to rate. Compared to the later versions of this tale, this film comes up very short. However, compared to films made around 1913, it's pretty good. If you do watch it--just cut it some slack. That's because at 26 minutes it's a very long film for the time and its reliance on overacting instead of makeup for Mr. Hyde was a common device---one that John Barrymore also used a decade later. Why? Part of it is the tradition of the stage--where you couldn't stop a production to apply monstrous makeup. Another reason for doing this is that makeup was only in its very infancy in films. So, it was up to the actor (in this case, King Braggot) to act Hyde-ish. And, unfortunately, Braggot's version of Mr. Hyde was not great---as to make himself seem like Hyde, he doubles over as if he's suffering from a severe bowel obstruction! This version of Hyde loved beating the crap out of innocent people but the lewd aspects of his personality are not to be found. An interesting sanitized interpretation--but I think the perverted version of Hyde was closer to Robert Louis Stevenson's vision of the man.Now it sounds as if I didn't like the film--and this isn't really the case. Apart from the odd portrayal of Hyde, I found it truly amazing that they stuffed so much into only 26 minutes--and they did a nice job of it. Good sets and acting were obvious. The only other complaint I have really is about ALL silents up until about 1920--and that is that they feature too few intertitle cards. Often, the actors acted and acted but nothing was indicated as to what they were saying or doing. Typical but a bit confusing.My advice is to watch this and then perhaps watch the Frederic March version and compare them. Or, try the Barrymore silent version. Either way, there are other silents and talking versions you can compare it to--they must have made a bazillion of them!

Nozze-Foto Carl Laemmle's Universal Studios was less than a year old when he made this 3 reel version of Stevenson's novel, at least the sixth film version done since 1908! King Baggot, the star, was the moving pictures first real (reel?) superstar, sometimes appearing in a new movie each week (wow!). Baggot later gave up acting and went to the other side of the camera to become a director, doing such things as THE PONY EXPRESS (1924). This version is well done though the first transformation has a bad gaffe. The double exposure is badly timed and for a moment it looks like there are 2 people in the room. Apart from that it is well done and convincing. I like the way Hyde scares the life out of everyone in a seedy pub just by standing in the doorway and glaring at them. It is my life's mission to see as many versions of this film as I can and this one was certainly worth tracking down. Give it a try.