User reviews

What a lovely movie to look at. Wonderful costumes and sets make this movie a real treat to the eye. Some of the best I've seen in a period horror film. The acting is also quite good. It's just too bad that this is all The Son of Dr. Jekyll has to offer.

It's easy to see why this film was titled The Son of Dr. Jekyll and not The Son of Mr. Hyde. Other than the opening scene where Hyde (I'm not entirely sure it was Hyde) has about five minutes of screen time, we see him for less than 10 seconds in the rest of the film. Very disappointing. Without Hyde, Dr. Jekyll has a tough time carrying a movie by himself.

The movie is really more of a crime mystery than a horror regardless of how it is listed on IMDb. The "son" spends the majority of the movie tying to figure out who is framing him as mad killer. While it is a decent enough idea for a movie, the killer's true identity is given away so early that there are few dramatic or tense moments later on.

I realise that my one-line summary is faint praise indeed but it does reflect the quality of this film. Overall it's at best, a slightly below average story but, it does indeed get better and picks up the pace in the last one/third of the film. The black and white photography of this period piece is done very well with the street sets looking very authentic. Louis Hayward does his usual competent job and is assisted especially well by Alexander Knox and Rhys Williams. Jody Lawrence is pretty to look at but her character adds very little to the story. The identity of the real killer is divulged rather early so this film is not a whodunnit. If you start watching this movie and find yourself starting to get bored, try to stay with it for a while longer. You will eventually be rewarded with about 30 minutes of good action.

This movie had all the promise of being a good, old fashioned thriller, but unfortunately, the premise was wasted.

Louis Hayward plays Edward Jekyll, the son of the late Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Most of his time on the screen is spent trying to prove that his father was not the crazed killer, Dr. Hyde, but instead just the brilliant but misunderstood Dr. Jekyll.

This movie was billed as a horror movie, but there is no horror. There are just a few very brief glimpses of the mad Mr. Hyde. This movie had good actors and it could have been so much more had they spent more time with the scary element of the Jekyll and Hyde story. By the end I was just bored with the whole thing.

I thought Edward Ulmer's 1957 movie entitled "The Daughter of Dr. Jekyll", starring Gloria Talbot and John Agar, was a much better film. Even though it was cheesy in parts, it was not boring. This one will put you to sleep.

MORD39 RATING: * out of ****

Get your pillow ready for this sure-fire cure for insomnia. Mr. Hyde is nowhere to be found in this dull and tiresome dud that features Louis Hayward as the son of the infamous doctor trying to find out what his old man was up to in that laboratory.

Interest wanes almost immediately as we wait for some kind of attempt at action to develop. It takes a very long time for this possibility to gain ground, but by that time it's too late for those who are still conscious.

As stated, Mr. Hyde is practically a no-show. I don't blame him for not sticking around.

Rather than following in father's footsteps, this (obviously lookalike) progeny takes it upon himself to clear the old family name – but is misunderstood at every turn. Ponderous offshoot of a well-worn formula (pardon the pun), acted for more than its worth; nowhere near as wacky as Edgar G. Ulmer's DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957), but just as watchable under the circumstances. Indeed, the fanciful kinsmen of famous literary monsters were a staple from the 1930s onwards and, while some of the end results were not only commendable but remarkable, it generally meant that the rot had set in that particular source and that exploitation film-makers were milking a catchpenny moniker for all it was worth. To spice things up a bit here, Louis Hayward (as the titular character) is brought up by Jekyll's attorney Utterson (Lester Matthews) as his own son and is only told of his heritage – by Jekyll's duplicitous(!) colleague Dr. Lanyon (Alexander Knox) – when he is – here it comes again – booted out of college for his unorthodox experiments! Familiar character actors Paul Cavanaugh and Rhys Williams – as, respectively, the investigating Inspector and the proverbial butler – also put in an appearance but have fairly little of note to do. Curiously enough, although Hayward does get to don the "Mr. Hyde" make-up in the film's prologue, the actual monster in the film proper is somebody else – though contriving to expire in the exact same new way devised by the film-makers earlier on: falling to his death from a window ledge!!

Most of the IMDb reviews are right on. This feature is atmospheric, but except for the opening and a rather illogical closing scene, is pretty low on thrills. In between, grouchy Louis Hayward runs around and gets into little fistfights, but as Jekyll. Hyde is almost unseen in the story. Blooper highlight: as one reviewer mentioned, you do see the romantic leads-supposedly at the turn of the century-- bidding each other farewell in the front yard of an obviously 1950's suburban house a la "Leave It to Beaver."

This movie has good actors and photography, but it's just an obvious remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in double step. We can just see the son is just repeating what his father did twice. Read other reviews, I just got tired of thinking, "He's just doing the same thing over again. I know what he'll do next."

Although Robert Louis Stevenson fails to mention a son in his work it turns out that he does and is played by Louis Hayward. He's been raised in secret and until recently was not aware of the chaos dear old dad caused with his experiments in Victorian London.

Anyway Hayward moves back into the old family dwelling and his neighbors are not pleased. Especially when some brutal events start occuring. Can it be the monster from the Jekyll DNA Id Mr. Hyde has returned courtesy of experiments Hayward is doing. Hayward does have an aptitude for science like dad, but what else?

I think Columbia Pictures which produced The Son Of Dr. Jekyll was fortunate to secure the services of Louis Hayward. Hayward could play swashbuckling heroes and some really dastardly scoundrels with equal ability. His ambiguous screen persona aids greatly here as you don't know how this will come out.

The rest of the cast does well and it includes Jody Lawrance as the girl Hayward is courting, Lester Matthews as her titled dad who really wants no Jekylls on his family tree, Paul Cavanaugh as the Scotland Yard inspector, Rhys Williams as Hayward's butler and Alexander Knox as a colleague of the original Dr. Jekyll.

This was a well done sequel to the original story.

Look at the house in the background of the scene where Edward is kissing his fiancée goodbye for three months. The house looks like the Leave it to Beaver house. If you look closely you can see the gutters on the house and the electric wires going onto it.

I recently watched Son of Dr. Jekyll (1951) on Tubi. The storyline follows the son of Dr. Jekyll, who is rescued from a burning building during his father's downfall. Raised without any knowledge of his infamous parentage, he grows up to become a successful chemist. Upon discovering his father's name and legacy, he sets out to prove the validity of his father's theories and clear the family name.

This film is directed by Seymour Friedman (Flame of Calcutta) and stars Louis Hayward (House by the River), Jody Lawrance (Ten Tall Men), Alexander Knox (The Longest Day), and Paul Cavanagh (Jungle Jim).

The movie has a mix of elements that work and others that fall short. The opening sequence, featuring the burning building, is a strong setup that sets the stage for the story's direction. The period-appropriate attire, props, and depiction of the era are spot-on. The subplot of the son trying to escape his father's shadow while attempting to redeem the family name is compelling, and the transformation scene is a highlight.

However, the film doesn't push the envelope enough with its storyline, leaving it feeling somewhat underdeveloped. The love story feels unnecessary and adds little to the narrative, while the ending is predictable and lacks impact.

In conclusion, Son of Dr. Jekyll has the ingredients for a worthwhile film but fails to fully deliver. I'd score it a 5.5/10.

Son of Dr. Jekyll, The (1951)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Dr. Jekyll's son (Louis Hayward) goes back to the laboratory to try and prove his father wasn't a monster. This film actually gets off to a pretty good start but things quickly fall apart making this a rather poor film in the end. The performances from everyone in the cast are actually pretty good, which is shocking for this type of film. The first transformation scene is also very well effective but after this there isn't much here. The film seems to think that the viewers didn't want to see a monster but instead sit around and listen to bad dialogue. There's way too much talk going on in this film and this here makes it quite boring.

Years after the horrors of the original tale, Jekyll / Hyde's child has reached adulthood.

THE SON OF DR. JEKYLL has the titular offspring, Edward Jekyll (Louis Hayward) picking up where dear old dad left off. Mad science commences when Edward sets out to prove the merit of his father's experiments. Using his father's laboratory, he recreates the fateful formula.

What could possibly go wrong?

TSODJ is a decent follow-up to the classic DR. JEKYLL movies, with the added twist of a nefarious character who causes big trouble for Edward.

A solid entry in the SON OF... sub genre...