GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

possumopossum I haven't seen this movie since I was ten years old, but it scared the hell out of me then. That was over forty years ago. Seeing Gloria Talbot standing in front of that mirror and see herself seemingly transform into a werewolf gave me the creeps, and then the cut to the full moon rolling through the clouds. Mighty scary stuff. It was made even more scary by that eerie music that played into the background. I thought this movie would never end. I wish I could remember more of it, but it's been so long since I've seen it. I would love to see this on DVD, it's been so long since I've seen it. It's probably tame by today's standards, but if you're a ten year old kid looking for something to give you a good scare, then this movie will do it. It did for me.

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.

Eegah Guy I've read plenty about director Ulmer being some poverty-row genius but this flick is only 70 minutes long and is still boring. Mixing the Jekyll monster with werewolves may sound like a fun idea but the treatment here leaves much to be desired. The new widescreen DVD of this movie looks real soft throughout much of the movie which might be a fault of the original movie or just a bad transfer.