MartinHafer During the 1950s and 60s, John Agar made a ton of lousy horror/sci- fi films. Gloria Talbott also made quite a few as well...and in "The Daughter of Dr. Jekyll" you get to see them both together. The difference is that Talbott managed to make a few really good films in the genre--including the classic "I Married a Monster From Outer Space"--whereas Agar just seemed to have a habit of making nothing but schlock. So which is it going to be here....classic horror or schlock or something in between?The story is a confusing affair and has the basis of a good story. When Janet Smith (Talbott) arrives at her family manor to claim ownership, she learns a terrible secret--that her father was the infamous Dr. Jekyll. What follows are a series of violent murders and Janet starts to worry that she might have committed them due to some evil gene within her! Her fiancée (Agar) and a nice doctor (Arthur Shields) seem to be the only ones who will defend her, as soon the villagers begin accusing her as well.The story above doesn't sound bad, does it? And, the mood for the picture is appropriately scary and brooding. However, the writing really was a serious problem as again and again they kept mixing up stories. While Dr. Jekyll created his alter-ego Mr. Hyde, in this movie they keep talking about this story as if Mr. Hyde was a werewolf-vampire!! There's talk about Talbott turning into the creature when the moon is full and how they have to kill her with a stake in the heart!! This has absolutely nothing to do with the Dr. Jekyll story...nothing. I was almost expecting them to toss in some mummy and Frankenstein lore into the film as well!!Overall, a confusing story to say the least but it IS an entertaining one. My advice is if you see it, turn off your brain and just enjoy it without thinking through the plot too much! A bit of a disappointment for Talbott fans...and an artistic triumph for Agar fans. No, this isn't because Talbott was bad in the film and Agar wasn't...it's just that compared to Agar's other horror films this is practically "Masterpiece Theatre"!By the way, the familiar Irish character actor Arthur Shields was actually Barry Fitzgerald's brother.

oldblackandwhite I didn't expect to find an example of the 1950's monster movie revival that could possibly be worse than The She Creature (1956 --see my review), but Daughter Of Dr. Jekyll is so bad, it makes The She Creature look like an Academy Award nominee. Daughter of Dr. Jekyll is simply awful in every department -- terrible script with insipid dialog, bad acting, draggy pacing, uninspired cinematography, papier mache sets. Not to mention shabby special effects. This movie was so cheap, they couldn't even afford a decent artificial fog machine for the what-should-have-been atmospheric outdoors on the moors scenes. At times it looked like they had simply fogged the negative to get a murky effect. Other times it seemed as if someone was sitting under the camera smoking a cigarette and letting the smoke curl upward. I would not kid about something like this! I haven't mentioned incompetent direction yet, but we're getting there. Edgar G. Ulmer has a cult following among some of the auteur worshipers which regards him as an unappreciated genius who could rise above the low budgets of his projects and put his personal stamp on them. This Ulmer mystic is primarily based on a half-dozen pretty good ones out of a gazillion crummy ones he directed. The Black Cat (1934) and Bluebeard (1944) are widely and deservedly recognized as minor horror classics, while Detour (1945) is worshiped all out of proportion to its modest merits by the nihilistic wing of the noir groupies. Personally, I thought The Strange Woman (1946), one of Ulmer's biggest budget productions, better than most rate it. But with its cast, which included Hedy Lamarr and George Sanders, it occurred to me that it would likely have been better if someone else had directed it.To get to the business at hand, Ulmer's bumbling direction in Daughter Of Dr. Jekyll must shoulder the blame for a competent cast, including John Agar and Arthur Shields, acting so poorly. It seems as if Ulmer told them they had to say their lines as quickly as possible, because they were in danger of running out of film. Maybe there was a doubtful, bought on the cheap, microphone, as well. Everyone shouts his our her lines with a frantic haste. Shields, normally almost as good an actor as his look-alike Accademy Award winning brother Barry Fitzgearald, in this turkey screeches, grimaces, and even waves his arms like one of the rejected try-outs in a high school play. Agar is even worse. He just seems angry, no matter what emotion he is supposed to be portraying. No doubt he was sore about being reduced to such penny ante productions. Well, he was an "A" actor at one time, and he should have laid off the whiskey if he wanted to stay one. Buxom female lead Gloria Talbot has her moments as the tormented title character, but it is only tall, craggy John Dierkes who rises above Ulmer's wacko direction to turn in a creditable performance as the sullen manor servant bent on righting the Jekyll wrongs.This picture is a serious stinker. Only for Ulmer cultists, die-hard fans of 'fifties horror, and desperate insomniacs. Others should avoid Daughter of Dr. Jekyll as if it were a skunk crossing the road.

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

MARIO GAUCI This is a low-grade horror film which has been culted into a reputation beyond its worth because of its director's involvement. The plot is strikingly similar to that of another notorious potboiler - SHE-WOLF OF London (1946) - but, at least, here the monster is seen (albeit ineffectively made-up): despite the titular reference, the script pays little to no credit to previous cinematic incarnations of the R.L. Stevenson novella - opting, instead, to indiscriminately incorporate elements of lycanthropy and vampirism which make no sense at all...but which lend the film value as a unique curio and one which, in view of its sheer audacity, it is difficult to hate (indeed, the whole misguided enterprise reminded me of the contemporaneous FRANKENSTEIN 1970 [1958])! Despite the ultra-cheap production, the film makes the most of its foggy atmosphere and the hallucination sequences are effective in a naïve sort of way. Casting is below-par but, at least, Arthur Shields (who also appears in a silly book-end in full monster make-up - but, then, as Gloria Talbott's legal guardian spends the rest of the film trying to convince her that she is the werewolf!!) and John Dierkes (as a particularly vehement believer in the Jekyll 'legend' despite being in their employ - or, so it seems, since he's always hovering about the estate!) enter gleefully into the spirit of the thing.I had been toying with the idea of purchasing the All Day DVD of this one ever since it was released; I'm glad I managed to catch up with it eventually without having to purchase the disc - being shown on late-night Italian TV, as part of a Jekyll & Hyde marathon which included snippets from a variety of films based on the venerable tale (I was especially gratified by the inclusion of a couple of scenes from Jean Renoir's THE TESTAMENT OF DR. CORDELIER [1959], which I've been yearning to see forever, and also ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE [1953], which I haven't watched in ages - I really ought to get down to purchasing either the R1 or R2 DVD releases of the films featuring the comic duo!)...