This 1920 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a good example of a film having a firm grasp on all the fundamentals. Seldom does it amaze or inspire awe, but it continuously tells its story very well. Realizing that the basics alone of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel are much good enough to make a movie without drastic alteration, this film simply tells its story in the best way it can.

The selfless Dr. Jekyll lives a life of such beneficence that he is far away from any temptations to do wrong. Sir George Carew, his fiancée's father, however, chides him for this, saying that only the weak fear "experience," his euphemism for disgracefulness. Therefore, he takes Jekyll for a night on the town. Jekyll, now introduced to the wonderful world of temptation, decides to create a drug that isolates the evil of a man from the rest of him. This way, he can yield to all the temptation he wants, as his alter-ego Mr. Hyde, but his soul will remain untarnished. . . . Right? . . . Right?

As far as the way the story unfolds, this is pretty much your standard Jekyll and Hyde stuff. The film does not hold back, though. As Hyde begins to progressively take over the life of Dr. Jekyll, his deeds become worse and worse. In one scene, Hyde attacks an innocent little boy in detail startling for the 1920s, and later he goes as far as to commit murder (it is not entirely clear whether the boy was actually killed in that attack). At the same time, Jekyll begins to realize that maybe his soul isn't so free from the sins Hyde commits. Otherwise, why does he feel so guilty when he resurfaces as his good self? He did, after all, willingly give rise to Hyde. This is not only your standard Jekyll and Hyde, good and evil story. It is also one of those classic stories about man reaching into God's territory (the body/soul dichotomy, in this case) and messing around with things. We all know how well that works out.

As virtually anyone who has seen this film will tell you, John Barrymore, who plays the title role, is what makes it. He is a perfectly subdued gentleman as Jekyll, but when he turns into Hyde, he is wicked with no reserve. Even his mannerisms seem infected with evil. He unflinchingly commits wrongs, and just looking at him one always gets the sense that he is scheming something awful. Whenever he turns back to Jekyll, his regained poise always seems a little forced, like he's trying to convince himself that he is still an upright citizen. This is especially effective for the silent film format. We are never in need of a title card to tell us "Now, the evil Mr. Hyde concocts an evil plan." The emotions and intentions are always clear to the viewer, even if the character is trying to hide them.

The impressive visual effects also help to bring out the evil in Hyde. The first time the transformation occurs, his body draws up, his back hunches, his fingers thin, and his face almost seems to slightly decompose. I don't know if it's just me, but each successive appearance of Hyde seems to look even worse than the one before. Every little detail about him just looks bad. It is as if his moral rot is so potent that it has caused his very body to decay.

As a straightforward version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this film does the trick. It doesn't play around with the tale at all; it simply takes the basics and presents them in the most effective way. Even though Hyde's makeup is the only element that stands stand out as particularly innovative or outstanding, the film overall does a fantastic job of recreating the Jekyll and Hyde experience. This is a sold telling of a classic story.