Herança Maldita

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...

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 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.

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.

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.