MARIO GAUCI Rather than following in father's footsteps, this (obviously lookalike) progeny takes it upon himself to clear the old family name – but is misunderstood at every turn. Ponderous offshoot of a well-worn formula (pardon the pun), acted for more than its worth; nowhere near as wacky as Edgar G. Ulmer's DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957), but just as watchable under the circumstances. Indeed, the fanciful kinsmen of famous literary monsters were a staple from the 1930s onwards and, while some of the end results were not only commendable but remarkable, it generally meant that the rot had set in that particular source and that exploitation film-makers were milking a catchpenny moniker for all it was worth. To spice things up a bit here, Louis Hayward (as the titular character) is brought up by Jekyll's attorney Utterson (Lester Matthews) as his own son and is only told of his heritage – by Jekyll's duplicitous(!) colleague Dr. Lanyon (Alexander Knox) – when he is – here it comes again – booted out of college for his unorthodox experiments! Familiar character actors Paul Cavanaugh and Rhys Williams – as, respectively, the investigating Inspector and the proverbial butler – also put in an appearance but have fairly little of note to do. Curiously enough, although Hayward does get to don the "Mr. Hyde" make-up in the film's prologue, the actual monster in the film proper is somebody else – though contriving to expire in the exact same new way devised by the film-makers earlier on: falling to his death from a window ledge!!

MartinHafer This film starts with a prologue that contradicts the previous Dr. Jekyll movies as well as Robert Louis Stevenson's novel. It this incarnation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the Doctor was married (he was engaged in the other films) and had a baby boy. After the Doc is killed by an enraged crowd, one of Jekyll's friends takes the tyke home to raise it as its own.The film now jumps forward many years. Jekyll's son is also experimenting on weird stuff and is possibly going to be dismissed from the local university. He also is almost of age--and about to inherit his father's estate (which, incidentally, sure appeared to be burned down as the film began).For much of the film, the press hounds the now adult son of Jekyll. In order to sell papers, they set up young Jekyll several times--making him look like a maniac. After a while, so much hysteria is created that his safety is a serious concern. Also of concern, however, is that Junior is a bit daft...as he begins trying to replicate Dad's work!! So, on one hand you feel sorry for him because the papers are often breaking the law in order to get a story. The things they do are amazingly sleazy and sick. But on the other, young Jekyll does appear to be a nutter! In the meantime, violent assaults begin to occur and Jekyll is blamed for them--especially because they seem to occur just when he COULD have done it. However, the viewer can see that it is NOT Jekyll doing this but a mysterious stranger. Who this is and why is something you'll just need to see for yourself. However, if you are looking for a monster film, you may be disappointed as the film really is more of a mystery movie. While no doubt this happened to some in the audience, I was happy to see it because at least it didn't make the film a predictable by-the-numbers film.Overall, it's better than the current IMDb score of 4.1, as this would indicate that this is a very poor movie--and it certainly is not. Decent acting and an unusual script make this worth a look. My only reservation about the film is that they really did not need have Jekyll Junior do any sort of experiments, as this did seem to cloud the issue a bit. Otherwise, a very good film.Now that I think about it, the plot of this film is a lot like PSYCHO II, as most of the film consists of a person trying to convince Norman that he is NOT cured (though I was NOT a fan of PSYCHO II because of its convoluted ending).

babeth_jr This movie had all the promise of being a good, old fashioned thriller, but unfortunately, the premise was wasted.Louis Hayward plays Edward Jekyll, the son of the late Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Most of his time on the screen is spent trying to prove that his father was not the crazed killer, Dr. Hyde, but instead just the brilliant but misunderstood Dr. Jekyll. This movie was billed as a horror movie, but there is no horror. There are just a few very brief glimpses of the mad Mr. Hyde. This movie had good actors and it could have been so much more had they spent more time with the scary element of the Jekyll and Hyde story. By the end I was just bored with the whole thing. I thought Edward Ulmer's 1957 movie entitled "The Daughter of Dr. Jekyll", starring Gloria Talbot and John Agar, was a much better film. Even though it was cheesy in parts, it was not boring. This one will put you to sleep.

bensonmum2 What a lovely movie to look at. Wonderful costumes and sets make this movie a real treat to the eye. Some of the best I've seen in a period horror film. The acting is also quite good. It's just too bad that this is all The Son of Dr. Jekyll has to offer.It's easy to see why this film was titled The Son of Dr. Jekyll and not The Son of Mr. Hyde. Other than the opening scene where Hyde (I'm not entirely sure it was Hyde) has about five minutes of screen time, we see him for less than 10 seconds in the rest of the film. Very disappointing. Without Hyde, Dr. Jekyll has a tough time carrying a movie by himself.The movie is really more of a crime mystery than a horror regardless of how it is listed on IMDb. The "son" spends the majority of the movie tying to figure out who is framing him as mad killer. While it is a decent enough idea for a movie, the killer's true identity is given away so early that there are few dramatic or tense moments later on.