SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

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.

rwagn Technically this should be listed under "Goofs" as it not so much a review. While watching the film I noticed during the two scenes that occur around the breakfast table if you look out the window, just past the fake foliage, you will notice late 1950's cars whisking by on an obviously very busy street. The story is set on an isolated wooded estate 20 years after the death of Dr. Jekyll which should put this in the early 1900's. Gloria Talbott is seen wearing a corset and a bustle with high button boots and John Agar wears a striped jacket like those worn by barber shop quartets. Obviously there should not be sedans whizzing by the estate. The only reason I wanted to see this film was due to the participation of Gloria Talbot-a real 50's fave and quite the knockout. She did not disappoint.

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!)

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