InjunNose "The Daughter of Dr. Jekyll" is a confused jumble of horror film clichés in which the savage Mr. Hyde is repeatedly referred to as a "human werewolf" (!) who could only be killed when a stake was driven through his heart (!!). There are lots of things wrong with that premise, but the one unforgivable sin committed here is the infliction of dullness upon the viewer: "Daughter" is truly one of the most toothless, uninteresting horror movies I've ever seen. Pretty Gloria Talbott (the titular daughter) and dignified, reserved Arthur Shields (the seemingly kindly Jekyll family retainer whose true intentions are anything but wholesome) can't save it. As Talbott's husband-to-be, John Agar is strictly phoning it in; by all accounts he hated doing this film and I don't blame him one bit. Everything about "Daughter" is utterly pedestrian. Director Edgar G. Ulmer (beware, Ulmer fans: this is a far cry from "The Black Cat" or even "Bluebeard") and his cast made no serious attempt to rise above the mediocrity of Jack Pollexfen's script. They just shot the picture, called it a day, and went home. Naturally, no one expects these little genre films to be masterpieces, but you do expect them to hold your attention. With a lack of scares and atmosphere, and laughably unrealistic action scenes to boot, "The Daughter of Dr. Jekyll" is an all-around stinker. (I've seen worse movies, but rarely have I seen a more boring one!)

gftbiloxi Edgar G. Ulmer began his career as a set designer to the famous theatrical impresario Max Reinhardt; by 1920 he was working in films, and although often uncredited labored on such legendary films as Fritz Lang's DIE NIBELUNGEN and METROPOLIS. By 1927 he was in Hollywood, and set design work led to assignments as a director. In 1934 Ulmer brought the full force of his talents upon Universal's THE BLACK CAT--a brilliantly realized film that many consider among the finest horror films of that decade. But Ulmer's affair with script girl Shirley Castle, wife of a studio executive, resulted not only in his termination at Universal but placed him on an industry-wide blacklist as well. He would never work at a major studio again.But Ulmer had a knack for getting the most out of a tiny budget, and he soon found himself in demand as a director at second-string studios and for independent productions. Between his dismissal from Universal in 1934 and his death in 1972 he would direct more than forty films, and he was often noted for his ability to bring a remarkable artistic vision to the screen in spite of low budgets and questionable casts.All that said, the 1957 DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL was, according to daughter Arianne, a project undertaken for the sake of a paycheck; it is far from Ulmer's most memorable. Even so, as 1950s B-horror flicks go, it is far from the worst--in spite of tenth-rate special effects Ulmer manages to endow the movie with an entertaining atmosphere and the occasional jab of humor, and it is considerably more coherent than most of its kind.The story concerns orphaned Janet Smith (Gloria Talbott), who has now reached her twenty-first birthday and arrives at the home of her guardian Dr. Lomas (Arthur Shields.) She brings with her future husband George Hastings (John Agar), who soon wins Dr. Lomas' approval, and all seems pleasant. But Janet is in for a surprise: Dr. Lomas tells her that she is heiress to the estate, left to her by her father, the notorious Dr. Jekyll, and no sooner is Janet in residence than corpses begin to crop up. Has she somehow inherited her father's chemically-induced evil? The script here is extremely transparent, and you'll know what's going on long before Janet does. It is also more than a little odd, managing to wrap ideas about vampires and werewolves into the whole Dr. Jekyll package. Add to this extremely obvious miniatures awash in dry ice, mediocre special effects, and a cast that tends toward the obvious at every possible turn--well, the overall effect is somewhat hooty, to say the least.THE DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL will never rank along side the likes of Ed Wood's PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE in the "so bad it's good" cult movie derby--Ulmer is too much of an artist to permit tipsy tombstones--but it is actually amusing in its low-rent efforts. Recommended to fans of the genre.GFT, Amazon Reviewer

macabro357 Not one of Edgar G. Ulmer's best, but I'm glad they saw fit to release this one on DVD. However, if you're looking for another little Ulmer classic like BLUEBEARD (1944) or DETOUR (1945), you'd better look somewhere else 'cause this ain't it.Gloria Talbott, the daughter of the late Dr. Jekyll, is slowly being hypnotized and pumped full of drugs into believing that she is the killer of a couple of women who were found near her late father's estate. She is slowly being driven mad by the real killer who wants her to take the blame for it.Of course she isn't the one because she's the heroine and we can't have the heroine turn out to be a bad guy. This is the 50s, after all. We also have John Agar as the Talbott's fiancée and Arthur Shields as the weirdo who is the executor of the late Dr. Jekyll's estate. They don't really add much of anything to all this beyond chewing up some film time. That is, until the very last 5 minutes of the film. But what's really a bummer is that the killer is revealed in the very first flashback of the film, so why Ulmer threw away the element of surprise is a real mystery. I guess you'll just have to see it for yourself.And considering the fact that Allied Artists didn't always use the best of film stock, the digital remastering looks as good as can be expected for a low budget film like this. No more excessively grainy prints to look at.I'll give it a 4 out of 10 for at least being worth a look, especially if you're into Ulmer's films like I sometimes am.

cliff-p Not an easy film to get to see in the UK. I had read many reviews giving this film the thumbs down; when I finally saw it I thought it was an excellent example of a 1950's horror/sci-fi movie attempting to cash in on the current trend which was tending towards the sci-fi element.This film hedges its bets by having both elements i.e Dr Jeykyll's potions for sci-fi and the "werewolf" for the supernatural horror. It also has the element of the "mystery" created by Arthur Shields'(Barry Fitzgerald's brother) attempts to explain everything away. All no doubt intended to mystify the teenagers who were the film's target audience. However,in spite of all this there is a nice creepy atmosphere to the film and it kept me interested for the 75 minutes or so running time.(Apparently for US TV airings,the "monster chase " scene from "Frankenstein 1970"was added in an attempt to boost the length.) Now for the question-is the film's "success" due to Edgar Ulmer's presence? Personally I think so but I am apparently in the minority