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.

"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!)

On her 21st birthday, Janet Smith (Gloria Talbott) discovers she has inherited an estate and a large sum of money. She's suddenly a wealthy woman about to be wed to the man of her dreams, George Hastings (John Agar). But she learns something else. She learns her father's secret. She discovers she is the daughter of the infamous Dr. Jekyll. And she begins having vivid nightmares of killing people in the most horrible of ways. She wakes to find herself covered in blood, her clothes torn, and her shoes muddy. Has she somehow inherited a dark, split-personality from her father that turns her into a snarling maniac? For anyone who has seen both Daughter of Dr. Jekyll and Universal's She-Wolf of London, am I alone in comparing the two? I hate to give too much away about either movie, but there's no denying the similarities – two women about to be married, both under the impression that they turn into killers when the moon is full, slowly being driven mad, yet neither is responsible for the acts they are accused. It's too much of a coincidence to be just dumb luck. Oddly enough, though, I prefer Daughter of Dr. Jekyll to She-Wolf of London. It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it is slightly more enjoyable to me than the earlier movie. Chief among the reasons that I prefer this movie is the female lead. June Lockhart is one of my biggest complaints with She-Wolf of London. Gloria Talbott is far more believable in the similar role.My biggest complaint with Daughter of Dr. Jekyll is the changes it makes to the Jekyll/Hyde storyline. Hyde is now referred to as a werewolf that had to be staked through the heart to kill him. Huh? So now he's some sort of werewolf/vampire creature? News to me! And I never quite understood how his daughter was supposed to have inherited his "curse". Wasn't Dr. Jekyll's "curse" self-induced? It doesn't seem that something that could be passed from one generation to the next.

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