User Reviews

This is the oldest version of "Jekyll and Hyde" in existence. The film stars James Cruze, who is most famous for his film "The Covered Wagon". It was made by Thanhouser Film C. and was released on January 16 1912. and clocks in at about 11 min. I may have took a star away due to the fact that it could have been longer(the 1913 version was 26 min. only a year later). Actually, in a 1963 interview, a stock crew member named Harry Benham who worked at Thanhouser, said that he portrayed Mr.Hyde in some scenes. When you watch the film you can tell them apart because James is taller and their Hyde makeup is slightly different.

The film starts off with Jekyll briefly talking with an elderly man apparently about drugs. Then Jekyll locks himself in his lab and tests his "potion" on himself. Immiediatly a dark haired taloned beast appears in the chair, looks in his mirror (he is slightly shorter than before mmmmmmmmm)takes the drug again and transforms back into Jekyll, and then begins to write something down.

Jekyll (with his wife a ministers daughter) meet each other in front of her house and talks with her father. The next scene shows Jekyll reading a book cries out in agony rushes into his lab and now Jekyll is Hyde, Hyde grabs his hat runs out into the street knocks down a little girl rushes back to his lab and transforms into Jekyll.

Jekyll is talking to his wife in the the park and then he suddenly runs away kneels down and in the next shot is Hyde. He runs back, tries to strangle her, her father comes (from nowhere) and Hyde kills him instead. Jekyll says to his wife he is "going away" and then he runs back to his lab, a card says his potion is gone now he must remain Hyde to the end. Hyde is in his lab now. He go's on a rampage destroying his lab looking for something. Police have tracked down Hyde and are breaking down the door. just as they are about to break the door down, Hyde takes a fatal dose of poison........... when the police come in Hyde is dead. THE END

Even though this version is short, it is still pretty good and recommended.

Without a doubt, Robert Louis Stevenson's celebrated classic, "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde", is one of the most famous and influential novels of Gothic horror ever written, as its main theme, the inner conflict between a man's good and evil natures, has inspired countless works and several adaptations to film and stage. Thomas Russell Sullivan's 1887 stage play, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was one of the most successful of its time, and soon found itself as the source for film adaptations thanks in part to the touch of romance that Sullivan added to Stevenson's tale. While the most famous adaptation of this play is without a doubt the 1920's version (starring John Barrymore), that was actually the third time the stage play was adapted to film, with the first version produced in 1908 and the second being this film, made in 1912 by the Thanhouser Company.

In this version, James Cruze plays Dr. Jekyll, a respectable scientist who has dedicated his studies to the creation of a formula to separate humanity's two natures. To test the formula for a last time, Jekyll locks himself in his laboratory and drinks the potion, waiting for the effects to take place. Suddenly, he transforms into his evil alter ego, which takes the name of Mr. Hyde and begins to wreak havoc in town. Hyde takes the antidote to become Jekyll again and cover his crimes, but Jekyll's repeated use of his Hyde's persona begins to take its toll on him, making the transformation to occur without the need of the potion, almost at will. In one of these uncontrolled changes, Hyde murders the town's preacher, who is the father of Jekyll's sweetheart (Florence La Badie). This event makes Jekyll to realize how dangerous Hyde really is, but unfortunately, he no longer has the antidote.

As written above, the basis for this movie is definitely the play written by Thomas Russell Sullivan, as the film moves away from the mystery of the novel and takes a more direct approach to the theme of split personalities. The movie touches an interesting theme in the idea of Jekyll becoming "addicted" to being Hyde, only to discover that his constant use of the Hyde persona has made it take over his original personality, almost like a metaphor to drug use. In those years screenplays were rarely used, but it's highly probable that director Lucius Henderson wrote one for the film, as the plot is very well developed considering the short runtime of 12 minutes (just one reel). While the style Henderson uses in the movie is pretty straightforward and a bit stagy, it's not really a bad movie and some scenes (specially the melodramatic ones) are still very effective.

James Cruze, who during the 20s would become a respected director, delivers an effective performance as both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. His Jekyll is particularly effective, as unlike most versions where the character is the epitome of goodness, Cruze makes him a flawed human in a very convincing way. His Hyde is less convincing, although that's probably because actor Harry Benham also played the character in several scenes Still, to Benham's (and Henderson's) credit, the change between actors is practically impossible to distinguish. Thanhouser regular Florence La Badie appears as Jekyll's sweetheart and she is quite good as the character, although her role in the film is considerable smaller than in the play, as the movie focuses completely on Jekyll's conflict. Interestingly, Thanhouser's child prodigy Marie Eline appears in a brief role as the kid who gets knocked down by Hyde in that classic scene.

While the acting is of excellent quality (as usual with Thanhouser films), the style of the film may come off as too stagy to modern viewers and sadly, the budget limitations do show off in more than one occasion. Still, Henderson makes his movie an entertaining and to an extent, faithful adaptation of Stevenson's novel that will certainly appeal to fans of the classic tale. Lucius Henderson's version of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" may not be a mind blowing experience today, and even when compared to other movies of its period (the German film "Der Student Von Prag" comes to mind) it comes off as simply better than average, however, it's by no means a bad movie and I'd even say that it's required viewing for anyone interested in the early years of American horror cinema. 7/10

This film is somewhat interesting for comparison to later screen adaptations, but it's probably not worth watching otherwise. It's only one reel, however, so it's not a waste of time, either. There's a lot of condensing of the story, of course, to fit the one-reel standard. (For the one-reel format, I tend to prefer the original scenarios to the adaptations, due to this subtraction.) The plot here is reduced to mostly just the transformations. The most interesting element, otherwise, is how they film those transformations. The first two are done with substitution-splicing (or stop-substitutions), but after that, the other ones are done with direct cuts, crosscutting scenes (i.e. scene of Jekyll cuts to spatially separate action, then cuts back to prior scene with Jekyll now as Hyde).

Additionally, one actor plays Jekyll and a different actor plays Hyde (at least in some scenes). I don't recall that being done in any other screen adaptations of Stevenson's novella. Thanhouser, at the time, gave sole star credit to the one playing Jekyll, James Cruze. Hyde is the meatier role here, though.

"The taking of certain drugs can separate man into two beings---one representing EVIL the other GOOD" the story begins by telling us. Jekyll tests that theory on himself one night by downing an elixir, which instantly turns him into a clawed, slobbering ogre. A different elixir returns him to his normal state. More studies are needed.

He later marries. His repeated use of the elixir causes uncontrollable changes in him, back into the clawed, slobbering ogre, who ransacks his own house and then takes to the streets to assault people, and ultimately kill a man.

Followed by police, Hyde retreats to his home, for another dose of elixir. But when it is gone, he realizes he is now stuck as Hyde. Police chop down the door to Jekyll's study with an ax, only to find Hyde, and Jekyll, dead. Or, incredibly sleepy.

Industrial look throughout helps give it a more gritty feel, but compressing the story down to a handful of minutes makes it seem like they only adapted a couple of paragraphs of the story. This is the earliest existing film version of this tale, as a 1908 version appears to be lost.

When "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" premiered in Chicago in 1908, produced by the Selig Polyscope Company, the film was the first American real horror movie every shown. This film is lost, as well as its sequel, 1909's "The Modern Dr. Jekyll," also produced by Selig.

The earliest existing print of a movie based on the 1887 Robert Livingston Stevenson's novel "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is the 1912 "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," produced by Thanhouser Studios. Actor James Cruz, seen in the lead of the earlier "She," is named in the credits for playing both roles as the researcher Dr. Jekyll, soon to be married, and his evil alter ego Mr. Hyde, which the good doctor turns into by drinking a concoction of liquid.

The 1908 film claims to have been based directly on the Stevenson novel while the Thanhouser version takes its cue from the subsequent successful stage play, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or a Mis-Spent Life." There is some controversy as to who actually plays the shorter Mr. Hyde, one of the few Jekyll movies (and there are a great many) where Hyde is considerably shorter than his counterpart. A Thanhouser Studio actor Harry Benham is attributed by some to have played Mr. Hyde even though he isn't credited in the opening title. The viewer can spot the height difference between the taller Cruze, playing Dr. Jekyll, and the shorter Mr. Hyde.

The Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde theme has since been the main thread in a wide variety of movies, some which one wouldn't think would be related. They include "The Nutty Professor," "Van Hesling," "Edge of Sanity," "I, Monster," "The Ugly Duckling (cartoon)", and "Pagemaster."

The 1920 version has John Barrymore transforming and twisting himself before your eyes, Lon Chaney style. The 1931 version had an on-screen transformation using a technique that turned out to be simple yet brilliant, and director Rouben Mamoulian kept the secret until his deathbed. But such secrecy would not be needed here, because Jekyll merely drinks the potion grabs his throat and poof! The film jumps and the same actor has now transformed into Hyde complete with makeup and different colored hair. Apparently in this version blonde = good Dr. Jekyll, brunette = evil Hyde.

There are intertitles that tell you what is going on, but even though you can see the actors speaking to one another there are no dialogue intertitles.

There is no "woman of the street" that Hyde is molesting in this version. And although he does cane somebody to death, the only other evil thing that he is shown doing is knocking down a toddler on the sidewalk! Oh, and Dr. Jekyll does not name his evil self Hyde. From the intertitles we are told that this is what the people of the village have dubbed Jekyll's evil self.

The title role is played by James Cruze, early silent actor and later a director into the talking picture era. He was later married to Betty Compson, the hardest working actress of the early talking era. But here one of the extras is Marguerite Snow, his first wife and mother of his only child.

The nearest I've come to reading Robert Louis Stevenson's original text of DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE is via a Marvel comic book adaptation so I've no idea how well it compares to its source and can only judge it on its own merits and of the contemporary comparisons of cinema

Being only little over twelve minutes there is a brevity to the storytelling which doesn't harm it all and despite eliminating any complex character studies on the dark side of the individual that Stevenson might have included in his novel the story does bring a tight plot to screen

Director Lucius Henderson doesn't bring the jaw dropping visuals J Searle Dawley brought to the 1910 version of FRANKENSTEIN and you can easily guess how the transformation was achieved of Jekyll in to Hyde , one of stopping the camera , putting the make up on actor James Cruze and then having the camera run again . Very simple when you know how in 2013 but one that probably impressed an audience one hundred years ago

Of course if you want to be cynical you could claim that Cruze interpretation of Hyde is very hammy and unsubtle but let's not forget that method acting didn't exist in silent cinema and everything is melodramatic with an unwritten rule of the time that someone always has to to hold their hand to their forehead when emoting any strong feeling of surprise bus as I said you have to remember the context of when it was made

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.

I stumbled upon this version when I was looking for all of the adaptations I could of Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. This was on a DVD that I picked up with 6 other short films from the era. I decided one night to give them all a viewing as well which at the time of writing this, this was the only one that was horror. The synopsis is Dr. Henry Jekyll (James Cruze) experiments with scientific means of revealing the hidden, dark side of man and releases a murderer from within himself.

Now being this is a silent film that only runs 12 minutes, there's not a lot here, but it is still pretty strategic in what it did. It starts off with a medical textbook stating that there's a drug that can separate the good and evil within a man. Dr. Jekyll mixes up a tonic and drinks it turning him into Mr. Hyde. What I like here is that Dr. Jekyll has white hair and when he turns, some of his teeth blacken and his hair goes dark. The transformations are also pretty good for the era. We get a lot of stoic camera angles, mostly due to the technology of the time. They do hard edits for the change, but it could be worse.

Dr. Jekyll is also to be married, to Florence La Badie, but things take a turn though when they're on a date and Dr. Jekyll turns into Mr. Hyde, attacking another person. I just like that in this brief time, it is exploring that allowing the darkness of man out and you can be consumed by it.

I thought the acting was fine for the era, it is very stage play like which makes sense since the writers for this are all credited for the play. The score with it does give a sci-fi style vibe as well so it fit. I would say that this isn't bad for the length that we get. My issue is that I know there's more to the story that can be fleshed out, but being one of the earliest versions of it, I still dug it. I'm going to rate this slightly over average for a short version of this story.

One of the earlier adaptations of the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde this is passable silent cinema.

You know the plot of this household classic tale so I won't bore you, I'll merely say that here we have a 12 minute version that sees the ill fated experiments of the good doctor and how they unravel.

I always find silent cinema to be both charming and frustrating. Thankfully this came before the time they insisted on dabbling with filters that quite frankly leave me with a migraine.

It looks the part, the music is fitting and though hammy (As was to be expected back then) the cast do a decent enough job.

Very short but passable for its day it's easy for such a short to get lost in an ocean of adaptations.

The Good:

Well made

The Bad:

Very short and therefore restricted

Do not let age fool you. This is one of the scariest movies around. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1920) is scarier. But still this is a very scary movie. Great special effects. Great acting. Great story line. It is not as scary as Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931). But that one is hard to top. It is still very scary. Far more scary then silence of the lambs ever could be. Not quit as scary as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1941). But still very scary. I just watched now and I have the h.e.b.e.j.e.b.e.s I am on vacation in Florida now. It's night time and I 'm in my condo. This is a very scary movie. Very scary very scary very scary very scary very scary. If you like to get scared you should see this movie.

The oldest version of the classic Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde. Earlier version of 1908 is lost. So here we have it, if you want to know the story in 12 minutes you will get it all.

Overall the story is very simple. Drug tested to transform. Not knowing the consequences the drug takes over the body of de doctor and he turns not knowing when. So finally they see Hyde running into the house of Jekyll. An overdose taken by Hyde so no one knows the secret.

Effects are simply done once after that it's just editing with a simple cut so on that part it's weak and to be famous you need special effects or creepy atmosphere but none of that appears. Hyde looks a bit funny too. Still a must see because it takes only 12 minutes of your life.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1/5 Story 4/5 Comedy 0/5

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.

When I was a kid the only thing I knew about Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde was that they were alter egos of the same person. I knew one was good and one was bad. I thought Dr. Jekyll was bad and Mr. Hyde was good.

Why?

Because Jekyll was such a strange name. Doesn't it sound bad?

Of course I know better now. And I know that this short is just a Cliff notes version of the book. It conveys the necessary message, but it also conveys that it's all a result of drugs. There's an excerpt from a book at the beginning that reads, "The taking of certain drugs can separate man into two beings--one representing EVIL the other GOOD."

The implication being that we all have good and evil within us but we are largely able to keep the evil in check. If we should ever imbibe on drugs then we lose that inhibition and the evil takes over. The more drugs we take, the more the evil takes over.

I wish it was just drugs that brought the evil out of people.

Free on YouTube.

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.)

This adaption of the Robert Louis Stevenson Gothic horror novel is the oldest one in existence. Not only that but along with Frankenstein (1910) it's also one of the very first horror movies proper. It was produced by a film studio called Thanhouser who ran operations out of New York. Because of its age it is a much abbreviated version of the tale. Films from the time were rarely much longer than this. This means that it's fairly limited when compared to future versions. However, you really have to take into account its historical context and accept the flaws that are inevitable in such an ancient production. It was after all one of the first to develop a story based around a horror tale so on this basis alone it deserves some attention.

As others have pointed out, this production features different actors in the roles of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. This is, of course, highly unusual. But the basic idea seems to be the same, where we have the good doctor gradually taken over by his dark side. The potion he develops being the root of this, so it's very much a warning about the dark side of drug use and the way it can transform some people into violent monsters. All in all it's a pretty decent early horror movie, if nothing too remarkable.

After reading that "The taking of certain drugs can separate man into two beings...one representing EVIL, the other GOOD." handsome, white-haired, Dr. Jekyll (James Cruze) experiments on himself, turning into his wicked alter-ego, the ugly, dark-haired Mr. Hyde. This silent film, released by The Thanhouser Company in January 1912, is the second of many film versions of Robert Louis Stevenson's famous tale. About half of the original 21 minute film survives and, although the story is easily followed, current copies are quite choppy. The transformation scenes, usually the highlight any film adaptation of the story are either done off-camera or by a simple substitution splice. The film's structure was influenced by the 1887 stage version of the story and Cruze's acting is noticeably theatrical (not uncommon for films of the era). Stevenson's iconic tale of duality is one of the most filmed stories in the English language. The 1912 silent was preceded by five versions between 1908 and 1910 (apparently lost), and followed another short in 1914 (extant), the famous full length silent version starring John Barrymore in 1920, and numerous sound versions (the best of which may be the 1931 version, for which Fredric March won an Academy Award for his portrayal of the binate character). Entertaining and historically interesting.

The earliest Jekyll and Hyde movie known to this date stood the test of time for me by the end of the quick 10 minute film. When it comes to silent films the music chosen in the background has to be near perfect, although it sounded good at times, the music screeched too often leaving me cringe at moments. Cruze's portrayal of the doctor and the madman was fairly well done and the initial transformation scene was better than I expected. The film could have added a few more shots of written in story lines but the plot was easy to follow. This movie is the start of my deep dive in old horror classics and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 1912 silent film was a good way to begin.

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.

Lucius Henderson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" is the second movie adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson's novel, and the oldest surviving version. There was a 1908 version of which no prints are known to exist, making it a lost film. This movie is only about 11 minutes long, so they only adapted the most basic things about the story. Most of it's pretty anticlimactic.

The Thanhouser Company, which made the movie, produced about 1,000 movies between 1909 and 1918. This is the first one that I've ever seen, and I watched it on Wikipedia. Apparently, Florence La Badie (Jekyll's sweetheart) got killed in a car wreck a few years after the movie got released.

I suspect that most of my generation first learned of the story from Looney Tunes cartoons. For example, there was "Dr. Jerkyl's Hide", in which Sylvester is running from some dogs. He accidentally swallows some of the formula and turns into a monster who makes mincemeat of the bulldog but always reverts to his normal appearance when in the presence of the small dog. And then of course there was "The Nutty Professor" (both the Jerry Lewis version and the Eddie Murphy version).

This is an OK version. Nothing impressive. You're just not going to end up with any great adaptation of a classic novel if you only have eleven minutes. The best adaptations are the ones with Fredric March and Spencer Tracy.

I've heard many people complain that a book just can't be wrapped up in a mere 2 hour long feature...imagine having only 10 1/2 minutes to work with! This is of course an extremely condensed version of The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, but it's not a bad little film. It took 5 days to complete these few minutes which is a longer amount of time than most film productions of the day were given, film being more of a novelty back then. There's no real introduction to the story or our characters, the movie just gets right down to business with Dr. Jekyll's experiment. As far as the necessary special effects for this story go, the initial transformation cut shot is a bit silly but the fade back into the good doctor looks much better. On a more positive note, we get a lot of Hyde which is good as what horror movie fan doesn't want to see more of the monster and overall this film is a nice, simple telling of the basic story. Whereas it may not be as skillful or as important as Georges Méliès' A Trip To The Moon or Thomas Edison's Frankenstein, it's still a short film worth seeing if you're a fan of early silent cinema or Robert Louis Stevenson.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1912)

*** (out of 4)

The Thanhouser Company released this version of the classic tale with James Cruze in the title role. This version runs around ten-minutes and is a bit weird but it works nonetheless. Cruze is very good as Jekyll but another actor plays Hyde in most of his scenes. Nothing too new is done with the story but this is still a nice version to watch.

This is available on DVD along with six other shorts from Thanhouser. Other sources are out there as well but the picture quality on them aren't as good and a couple contain no soundtrack.