Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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.

Michael_Elliott Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1913) *** (out of 4) Originally released as a two-parts, this 26-minute short is certainly the longest of all the early versions of Stevenson's story and it also probably has the smallest budget. The film has King Baggot play the kind Dr. Jekyll who turns into the murderous Mr. Hyde after drinking the wrong potion. To me this is certainly the best of the early versions I've seen as Baggot really does have to do pretty much everything himself and in the end I think it makes for a find Mr. Hyde. The budget appears to be very small as the special effects are certainly lacking and are really far behind the work various other artists were doing including the master Melies. One can't help but wish the producer's had spent a little extra green trying to do more with the make up as pretty much all we get are a few shades under the eyes and not every scene even has that. What makes up for this is the performance by Baggot who really gives it his all and delivers a different type of take on Jekyll. Since there's no make up to hide behind, Baggot must instead create a real character and he makes a few interesting choices including playing Hyde as an almost hunchback who is basically a cripple, kneeling around and hobbling all over the place. This certainly doesn't make for anything scary but it's an interesting and different take. I think Baggot also manages to come across very intelligent with Dr. Jekyll and makes us feel as if we're really watching two different characters. The extra running time gives us several more scenes of Jekyll being destructive and this includes a rather shocking scene where he attacks a cripple boy just for the fun of it. The direction could have been better but I did enjoy the costume design and the sets were impressive for such a low budget. This isn't the easiest version to get your hands on but if you can find it and you're a fan of the story then this here is certainly worth watching.

MARIO GAUCI This is at least the 22nd(!) version – or variation on the theme – of the venerable R.L. Stevenson novella that I have watched (incidentally, yet another one would follow it the very next day). It came hard on the heels of the 1912 adaptation – which makes one wonder as to why another stab at this property was deemed necessary so soon, considering that cinema was still practically in its infancy…but, then, the inherent contrast between the Jekyll/Hyde personas always seemed to attract actors wishing to demonstrate their versatility (the ultimate irony being, however, that the individual 'star' of these Silents – namely James Cruze in 1912 and King Baggot in the film under review – both eventually became better known as directors)! Incidentally, I was most anxious to watch this particular version because our 'colleague' Michael Elliott considers it the best rendition of the classic horror tale ever!; that said, I know he will not be offended when I say that I have learned to take such hyperbolic assertions with a pinch of salt – especially since he also feels that the 1920 adaptation featuring the obscure Sheldon Lewis (which I rated ** myself) is superior to the John Barrymore vehicle from the same year! Anyway, the film is quite faithful – unlike, say, the aforementioned Lewis version – to the source material (if not necessarily its spirit); however, the thoroughly unsubtle acting – Jekyll emphatically waves his arms so much throughout the film that he can easily be mistaken for a preacher – to say nothing of the cartoonish Hyde make-up (complete with Groucho Marx walk and Jerry Lewis teeth!) is worthy of a parody. The transformation occurs a record number of times during the picture's brief 27-minute duration, with the last three minutes or so – in which the clumsy Hyde knocks over the last antidote serum, searches frantically (literally mounting on shelves!) for leftovers in his laboratory and eventually folds up on the table – in particular being unintentionally side-splitting!! Having said all that, I still think this was a worthy effort for its time and I am glad I have finally been provided with an opportunity to watch it for myself after hearing so much about it on this site…but as for being preferable to or better than the Mamoulian, Renoir, Albertazzi, Borowczyk, Robertson or even Fleming versions…?!