Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Abegail Noëlle While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Leofwine_draca The creaky classic is given an above-average treatment in this silent short. The running time clocks in at a mere 12 minutes which means that there's no time for extraneous material or slow spots, just a basic run-through of the Stevenson novella.The transformation from Jekyll into Hyde is achieved with a simple camera trick, substituting one actor for another. The story is straight-forward and comes complete with an appropriate opening (the first transformation), middle (a tragic romance) and end (a battle). The film contains a setting which was repeated for later versions. James Cruze is good as the scientist who transforms into an evil twin, coming across as a respectable gent. The actor playing Hyde goes over the top, of course, yet his portrayal works. The running time is extremely short as well, meaning that this early variation is well worth a watch.

MartinHafer This is one of seven short films included on a DVD entitled "The Thanhouser Collection". Thanhouser was an early film studio in New York that was a rival to American Biograph and Edison.Considering the subject matter, this film should have been a lot better. If you compare it to the famous 1920 version with John Barrymore, it's not even close--being too abbreviated and with an amazingly limp transformation scene. Whereas John Barrymore put on some fun histrionics as be went from the kindly doctor to Mr.Hyde, in this film the change is instant (stopping the camera and then substituting the other actor). I guess you can't fault them too much for this, but the rest of the film is also pretty dull--showing little of the plot (instead using intertitle cards too much) and the sets were not especially good (filming most of it either in the lab or outside). While the film gets kudos for using a short Mr. Hyde (like in the book), the rest of it just isn't that great--and I usually LIKE films from this era.

wmorrow59 James Cruze is remembered by silent film buffs as a man who worked behind the camera, most memorably as director of one of the first great Western epics: The Covered Wagon, released in 1923. However, in earlier years he worked as an actor for the Thanhouser company of New Rochelle, New York, a studio of modest size that was active circa 1910-1917. Cruze can be seen in the role of Dr. Jekyll in Thanhouser's one-reel version of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous tale, an adaptation that is neither the best nor the worst but surely one of the fastest film versions, clocking in at just over eleven minutes. Given the time constraints, these filmmakers really had to cut to the chase! After a brief shot of Dr. Jekyll discussing his theories with an unidentified companion, he's in his lab mixing the potion, and the first transformation takes place before one minute has elapsed. Perhaps it goes without saying that we get only the highlights of the story here.Don't expect the cobble-stone streets of Victorian London, for this is a low-budget production that appears to have been filmed in the suburbs of New Rochelle, identified only as "the village" in title cards. The presentation is straightforward and rather subdued, and the performances are low-key by the standards of the day. Hyde's makeup job is fairly restrained too, big teeth notwithstanding, certainly when compared to some of the later versions. I was a little surprised to learn that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are played by two different actors, at least in some shots. If you watch carefully you'll see that Harry Benham's Hyde is distinctly shorter than Cruze's Jekyll. Ordinarily actors relish the opportunity to play both of these roles, but perhaps the technical limitations of the time dictated this unusual casting decision.There is one especially effective moment when Jekyll realizes he's on the verge of a transformation into his evil alter ego in the presence of his fiancée, and attempts to get away from her. Viewers familiar with the source material might be interested in a couple of minor alterations from the novel: here, Jekyll's fiancée is the daughter of a minister, and there is a plot twist in the final scene relating to Hyde's death that may come as a surprise. Over all, however, this rendition of the story is little more than a moderately interesting curio. It isn't all that exciting, sorry to say, though allowances should be made for pioneer filmmakers. You know it's still early in cinema history when the shelves in Jekyll's study are painted on the walls -- and you know the movie isn't sufficiently exciting when you find yourself examining Dr. Jekyll's bookshelves.

dizozza Ah, the days before the world wars -- was the last great military activity the civil war of the 1860's? Mr. Hyde wears strange false teeth and is rather anal about hanging up his hat before destroying his alter-ego's laboratory. The Doctor's fiancee, a minister's daughter, wears two pretty dresses, one in white, then one complete with fur pelts, all in black after her father's demise. Dr. Jeckyll's jacket had satin accents at the collar. Each location is to be treasured for its simplicity. There is a cinematically framed image of people running down a sidewalk -- my favorite scene (I also like the shot in Cameron's Titanic where the boy sends a top spinning across the parquet floors of the ship's deck.)