This is a silent movie (of course, given the year), and as such will be of limited interest to most people. However, it is worth seeing at least once.
The main reason to see it is John Barrymore’s performance as the two titular characters. While saying that he pulls off Hyde without benefit of makeup is absurd (the shape of his head changes, fer pete’s sake!), it is nevertheless a marvel of performance. And he does effect the first transformation in a single shot, using only ACTING! to transition from one to the other. It is a bit overwrought, but it is also impressive, because you have no trouble believing that there are two completely distinct characters.
The other reason, if you have a taste for ladies, and especially if you have a taste for ladies of this period, is Nita Naldi, who has a small role as the woman who tempts Dr. Jekyll to explore his evil side.
The copy of the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on the Mill Creek collections is slightly truncated and, from what I understand, some bits of the film are, in fact, considered lost completely. However, given that it is not only Public Domain, but also silent, the condition of what I watched was pretty good.
The story follows the book and adds to it. The additions are not as successful as they might be. They attempt to “explain” Jekyll a bit more. He is, you see, a totally self-sacrificing altruist, the very model of sainthood. And his motivation in devising the drug that effects the alteration is that he wants to give into temptation without “staining his soul”. (Oy.)
The moral theory of the film is about what you would expect from the time it was made, if you assumed that it was scripted by a temperance union or the like. “Good” is pure and unremitting self-denial, and any pleasure of the flesh is “evil”. The surrender to temptation in even the smallest degree is doom, and nothing else. Insofar as its premises, the film is a horror-show without any need of an on-screen monster.
However, taking that into consideration, Barrymore’s performance is excellent, particularly in the closing scenes, when his Jekyll works feverishly to isolate himself from everyone and everything he loves in order not to harm them. (And, as noted above, his Hyde is remarkable as a physical performance — the two characters are completely different.)
Worth seeing? Yes, at the very least simply for Barrymore. It’s not the best silent horror film (I would say that Nosferatu takes that prize if you watch it in context, or the Lon Chaney-starring Phantom of the Opera if you want something without experiments that failed the test of time), but it is definitely worth watching.