Daughter of Dr. Jekyll

1957 "Blood-hungry spawn of the world's most bestial fiend!"
5.4| 1h11m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 28 June 1957 Released
Producted By: Allied Artists Pictures
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A young woman discovers she is the daughter of the infamous Dr. Jekyll, and begins to believe that she may also have a split personality, one of whom is a ruthless killer.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Allied Artists Pictures

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Pluskylang Great Film overall
FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.
Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
ferbs54 Not to be confused with "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde" (1972) or "Dr. Jekyll and Ms. Hyde" (1995), "Daughter of Dr. Jekyll (1957) is a moderately interesting quickie from legendary Poverty Row director Edgar G. Ulmer. In this one, Gloria Talbott--who would find the role for which she is perhaps most fondly remembered in the following year's "I Married a Monster From Outer Space"--learns, on her 21st birthday, that she is the eponymous daughter of the infamous scientist. This causes her and her fiancé, 1950s sci-fi stalwart John Agar, some understandable angst, especially when a series of murders commences in the nearby village... To be painfully honest, there really is nothing much to this movie, but Ulmer directs with so much panache, and Talbott, as usual, is so pretty and appealing, that these two elements put the film over. Especially effective are two surrealistic nightmare episodes suffered by Talbott, as well as Ulmer's use of fog and swirling mist; his cloud-covered moon shots are a real thing of beauty, too. On the down side, we have a surprise ending that is not much of a surprise, and a plot that would have us believe that Jekyll's alter ego Hyde was really a bloodsucking werewolf! This film is certainly not the horror masterpiece that Ulmer's "The Black Cat" (1934) turned out to be. Still, it IS fun, and this DVD is as crisp and clean looking as can be. Modern-day interviews with Agar and with Ulmer's daughter make for nice extras, too.
horrorbargainbin Most of the time this movie is creepy and decently shot reminding me at best of "Night of the Hunter" and at worst of atmospheric fog machine filled horror. I thought of "Night of the Hunter" during the scene where the Daughter waits outside her father's tomb while in the same shot we see the big village man carving a stake. Very ominous. That said, the stake death is the worst I've seen.The technique of superimposing one shot over another for action/dream sequences worked well in my opinion, but others may find it unoriginal. Monster make-up and blood effects were pretty good. Over all the movie is serious with a comic moment I liked with the Monster showing obvious joy as he views a women in her night clothes through an open window. The narration at the beginning and the Monster's ridiculous line don't fit the mood of the picture.
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
silentgpaleo 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.