kidboots It may have been only over 8 minutes long but films like this one bought literature to the masses, many of whom may not have been able to read. Thanhouser, based in New Rochelle, was able to take advantage of suburban streets, parks etc and it also boasted a popular group of players - later famous director James Cruze, beautiful Florence La Badie and little Marie Eline. In this Cruze plays the title role and the change over is done pretty seamlessly, Florence plays his worried fiancée and little Marie plays a little girl, knocked down by Hyde as he is fleeing to his laboratory after realising he has no control over keeping his evil ego Hyde hidden. Excellent little movie that belies it's age.

Jeff Moore I may not like silent films, but this one got my attention. I sat and watched it, it was truly a remarkable film. there were two others before this one, but sadly they are lost. I learned that this was also lost too, but it's now found it's great that film exist. The transformation scenes are dull, but the make-up on Mr. Hyde is brilliant in it's own way. This film may not live up the 1920 silent version or 1931 sound version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde films. But its truly a holy grail. this short film is interesting to watch, but it is only for cult fans. If you have free time give it a watch. I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Theo Robertson 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 screenDirector 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 agoOf 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

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.