Daughter of Dr. Jekyll (1957)

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.

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!)...

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

Or, perhaps skids is more like it. How did John Agar get such wretched work as this in between films with John Wayne? (All right, I suppose most Wayne films are schlock, too.)But, this is Dr. Jekyll's daughter. And he looks silly as her husband. This is a ridiculous Universal wanna-be, complete with a family estate and curse. The whole werewolf explaination for this curse is very contrary to Robert Louis Stevenson's original conception.But, the werewolf ploy is not enough. DAUGHTER...is so boring, that I defy anyone to sit through it twice. I was in a coma by the time the end finally came.Gloria Talbott rules, though. She is the quintessential mid-50's scream queen. She always played an able woman, but it always took a man by her side to work things out in the end(this time it is Agar). Talbott's appearances in this film and, THE CYCLOPS(the same year) cemented her image into many a Saturday-matinee patrons' mind.Is this before or after Agar divorced Shirley Temple? This is certainly not the most pickled he looked(he looks more bleary-eyed in his later, Larry Buchanan period), but he looks just a little too cheery in some scenes. Maybe he was happy that the filming would soon be over.I was glad when DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL was over. Unless you're a Gloria Talbott fan, skip it.