Buddy A (mustardnoize)

A classic treatment of a classic tale. Barrymore, as usual, is superb in his dual role of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; while make-up and lighting definitely played a part in the now-famous transformation, it is Barrymore himself that exhibits the starkest contrast between the two halves of the main character's personality through his posture, facial expressions, and exaggerated mannerisms (all, of course, without the use of sound), setting the stage for all future actors who would take on this challenging role (Fredric March, who would win an Oscar for his portrayal of Jekyll/ Hyde some dozen years after this film was made, must certainly have studied Barrymore's performance and likely took several pages from his book). As with most cinematic adaptations of Stevenson's famous 1885 novel, this film does away with the lawyer Utterson as the focal character (and replaces him with the Doctor himself, like virtually all films of this sort do), yet it does indeed utilize more elements from the source text than most, although they generally appear in different places in the cinematic narative (mostly toward the end). All in all, a remarkable silent film, and one that is recommended to fans of either the Stevenson novel or of silent horror films in general.

I'm afraid that I wasn't too big a fan of this film. I have not read the novel (which, I understand, was loosely based on Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice," and the film also bears some peripheral semblance to that classic text as well), so I can't comment on how close to the original it is, but I have heard from those who did that (as usual) the book was much better than the film (although as I said, I can't speak for this myself). That being said, there are several aspects of this film that, in my opinion, grossly undercut what it seems to be trying to do. While Zellweger's Bridget is indeed outspoken and arguably "lovable" (which I suppose is meant to make her more identifiable as a lead character), she seems far too self-depricating and desperate to make her the strong character the story seems to "want" her to be. Perhaps I have missed the point, but for a supposedly "independent" modern woman, Bridget appears to "need" male relationships to be truly labelled as such. Not, of course, that it is bad to want relationships (everyone does to a certain degree), but Bridget tends to define herself in this aspect, making it difficult for her character to support the central theme. Plus, other aspects of the film seem almost misogynistic. For instance, Bridget is supposed to be "fat" (and is referred to as such several times in the narrative), but come one; is Renee Zellweger really considered "fat?" I sure as hell don't think so! These and other incidents of intratextual sabotage (whether intentional or not), coupled with a cliche-ridden script (from which far too many modern romantic comedies unfortunately suffer) make this film entrely missable. There are some humorous moments here, but the film's derivitave narrative is too hard to overlook.

Probably the best film ever made. This is as close to a perfect movie as you'll ever get!

See this film, or I'll make you an offer you can't refuse...