Truly Dreadful Film

Lack of good storyline.

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

I, MONSTER is a British horror movie adaptation of the novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, written by Robert Louis Stephenson. It was produced by Amicus - who along with its competitors - Hammer and Tigon - dominated the British horror movie industry in the 1960s and early 1970s.Amicus are today best known for their excellent anthology horror movies. But they also made some non-portmanteau movies that were every bit as good - if not better - than their competitors were producing during this period. I, MONSTER is a great example of such a movie. Others include THE BEAST MUST DIE and MADHOUSE.I, MONSTER is arguably the best adaptation of the movie as one reviewer has already suggested on this site. The only key difference is that the names of the characters have changed from Jekyll and Hyde to Marlowe and Blake. In my humble opinion, this magnificent piece of work falls just short of perfect.The plot for those unaware of the story is as follows - a scientist experiments with drugs meant to release inhibitions. He witnesses a series of different effects - one patient behaves like a child and another craves for sexual attention. He decides to further his work by experimenting these drugs on himself. Initially he shows a hint of cruelty, preparing to use a scalpel on a mouse. But each time he injects himself, he becomes more monstrous, both in physical appearance and personality. This leads to murder and blackmail. The "split personality" theme is the main focus of the story and the movie is consistent with this.The movie expands upon the original story by involving Sigmund Freud. It also removes the "hero and villain" mentality associated with previous adaptations by presenting the scientist as a curious and dedicated man who simply but gradually loses control of himself. The story revolves predominately around this psychological concept with one man as the focus and the supporting characters merely bystanders who either try to help or become affected in some way by the situation.The reviewer who slated this movie for being a mere re-hash of the Hammer Dracula franchise couldn't be more wrong. The characters of Lee and Cushing are actually friends here - not adversaries as was the case in the aforementioned franchise. This movie is not about "good" versus "evil". It is instead a carefully crafted exploration into what causes "evil", how "evil" may be a necessary part of human nature, how the lines between "good" and "bad" can become blurred, and how science can have negative as well as positive consequences.Sir Christopher Lee and the late great Peter Cushing - perhaps the top two horror actors Britain has ever known or will ever see - invest every ounce of talent they have in their characters. Their performances here are amongst the best they have done. This movie is definitely one of their best pairings. Christopher Lee's overly ambitious and open-minded scientist contrasts perfectly with Peter Cushing's overly cautious and skeptical scientist. One scene they share is particularly moving and this the true testament of their performances here.Mike Raven seems to enjoy himself with a supporting role as yet another scientist. He held my attention in every scene he was in and I also enjoyed his performance in the movie, CRUCIBLE OF TERROR, a very unfairly maligned movie. He came across as a very professional actor despite the negative comments I have read about him. I was highly surprised to learn that he was in fact a DJ!The producers have clearly used imagination here. As another reviewer has pointed out, the movie is not set in the foggy Gothic settings associated with Hammer horror. Instead, this Victorian setting looks realistically grim with drunken people, prostitutes, street thugs, run-down pubs and even empty cans lying on the cobbles! There is no "sugar-coating" here!Direction by Stephen Weeks capitalises on the superbly atmospheric setting, excellent usage of camera-work, razor-sharp editing and the effectiveness of Christopher Lee's "Mr. Blake" characterisation to utilise some excellent horror. There is hardly any blood or gore here. This is a psychologically twisted situation that makes the viewer wonder who they should care about - Dr. Marlowe or the potential victims of Mr. Blake. The viewer can easily associate with the characters on the streets because Mr. Blake - with his wicked smile - was a truly scary creation - who anyone would quickly want to run away from. At the same time, the viewer can also relate to Dr. Marlowe - a scientist with good intentions who struggles to fight this inner demon known as Mr. Blake. Some great humour is also thrown in for good measure, helping to add more impact to the shocking moments, the details of which I will not spoil. Without revealing much, I can say that my favourite scene was the one where Mr. Blake visits a run-down inn to seek accommodation. Watch the movie and you'll soon find out what I mean.I, MONSTER has only one flaw I could find - its running time is slightly too short. A few extra scenes could have gone further in exploring Dr. Marlowe's fight with the inner demon in the second half. Instead, the second half seemed a little rushed, and the ending was both too abrupt and simply too predictable. However, these factors do very little to detract from the highly entertaining viewing experience of the movie as a whole.I, MONSTER is overall a magnificent movie by Amicus and certainly the best work they produced outside of the anthologies. I especially recommend it for all fans of movies made during the heyday of British horror movies in the 1960s and 1970s. Remember also to check out DR. JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE, another excellent Jekyll and Hyde adaptation made by Amicus's rival, Hammer, just a few months later.

I don't know why anyone would change the names of Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde but they did. The original names of the other characters are retained. The screenwriter has changed a few other features as well. I don't remember the novella that clearly but I do recall that the delivery vehicle was a potion of some kind, not a hypodermic syringe. That was changed, I would guess, to add to the wince quotient. And the obvious connection to those touchstones of the psychoanalytic scenario -- the id, the ego, and the superego -- are made explicit.Otherwise the movie seems to follow the novella fairly closely. As Dr. Marlowe, Christopher Lee is tall, handsome, reserved, a little hyde bound. He seems to keep his friends, including Utterson (Peter Cushing), at a distance.Then in his 1906 laboratory in London, he -- is it really necessary to spell out this story again? He invents a potion that releases his id, the savage part of our personalities. He calls himself Mr. Blake now. At first he's like a mischievous child in his lab, unable the hyde his glee over his freedom, chuckling over the retorts. When he injects himself again, he goes forth into the world and displays a murderous bent and, worse, bad manners.If at first, Mr. Blake remained recognizably Dr. Marlowe, his recurring appearance as Blake deteriorates rhopalically as his new, animalistic side gets under his hyde.By this time he's haunting low dives and pulls a Mrs. Doubtfire on his unsuspecting butler, Poole. I never found Mr. Blake's appeal convincing because he never really seems to be enjoying himself. When you let loose your "child", you're supposed to have a good time. That's what multiple personalities are all about. Lust, self indulgence, spite, and all the finer things in life. But the only emotion that Mr. Blake shows is anger, which, I grant you, some people find an enjoyable experience. By the penultimate appearance of Mr. Blake, when he murders a whore, his appearance is downright hydeous. He's combed his hair forward sloppily, been given a set of false teeth, and has the overall lineaments of a three-day old cadaver.Yet I found it hard to concentrate on the film. My consciousness kept drifting, circling slowly around profound and perplexing issues. Was it okay to have a mezzuzah on the door and a novena candle in the office? Was it alright for that brass figurine of the smiling Buddha to perch on my bookcase? And that statue of Dancing Shiva? Of course, that covered most of the bases, but suppose there WERE more than one Base and They were jealous of one another? Where would THAT leave me? And there were other threats to sanity hovering in the background. Where did the Big Bang come from? I mean, who or what started it? And if the universe is expanding, what the hell is it expanding INTO? And then there was that UFO encounter in Keansberg, New Jersey.All the while, Christopher Lee wandered about in the periphery of my perception, dressed in a black cloak and giggling as he fingered a hypodermic.At its base, it's another telling of the story of Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde, not much better than the others I've seen, the ones with Spencer Tracy or Frederick March. It's chief virtue -- aside from color -- is that it hews more closely than the others to what I remember of the original.

With this feature, Amicus Studios (a British production company founded merely to cash in on the huge success of contemporary competitor Hammer, though with lower budgets and mainly specializing in anthology films) attempted to present its very own adaptation of the legendary and numerously retold novel "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", by Robert Louis Stevenson. However, "I, Monster" turned out to be a rather curious movie and I honestly can't say for sure what it was that Amicus wanted to achieve and whether or not they succeeded in their effort. At first I assumed "I, Monster" was going to be only loosely inspired by the classic story, since there already are so many reminiscent versions available on the market and even more so because the screenplay changes the names of the protagonist from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde into Dr. Marlowe and Mr. Blake. But then it rapidly becomes obvious that this is actually one of the faithful adaptations of Stevenson's story, so that can't be an option. On a slightly off-topic note, in case you are looking for an offbeat and extremely loose interpretation of the same story, you can turn to the aforementioned Hammer again and check out "Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde". Maybe the original mission was to make the very first 3-D version of "Jekyll and Hyde", but that idea got abandoned in a fairly early stage as well and it's only still noticeable in some minor visual and cinematographic details. So, basically, all that remains is another redundant but nevertheless worthwhile re-enactment of a fantastic tale, once more pairing two of the greatest horror actors ever (Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee) and competently directed by one of the youngest filmmakers of that time. Stephen Weeks was still in his early twenties in 1971. I bet it must be a truly unique experience to give Lee and Cushing instructions on a film set on that age...Lee and Cushing don't deliver their greatest performances here (far from it actually), but even at their most mediocre they nonetheless remain a joy to behold. Lee stars as Dr. Marlowe, a successful psychiatrist and devoted disciple of Sigmund Freud's theories. He firmly believes that mental illnesses can be caused by the repression of the true human nature (which is vile, mean and aggressive) and that both sides of the personality can easily be separated. He develops a drug, experiments on himself and gradually turns into a more relentless and incurable monster after each injection. His friends, including Peter Cushing as his attorney, want to help Dr. Marlowe but they automatically assume this mysterious Mr. Blake is an entirely different persona. The overall story is commonly known and this version doesn't feature any noteworthy differences. The doctor's transformations - mentally as well as physically - grow more monstrous, but the remarkable thing is he is the scariest during the earliest phases! Near the film's climax, Christopher Lee looks unrecognizable and heavily deformed but after the first couple of drug dosages he simply puts on a menacing and genuinely unsettling Joker-type of smile. Can you imagine Christopher Lee with a big smile like that? Now, THAT is scary stuff!

This film is the 7312th remake of the classic story "Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde" and frankly I was left asking myself if the whole thing was even necessary. After all, with so many versions out there, does this one merit yet another? Plus, the Frederic March version of the 1930s was awfully good--is this one any better? Well, in only one way does it seem perhaps better. Instead of the doctor doing his experiments for no clearly defined reason, here the doc is an analytic therapist and he finds the serum unleashes inhibitions--meaning some patients might become violent, some sexual and some infantile. This could have been interesting, but unfortunately it ultimately wasn't since it wasn't done all that well.What wasn't all that good? Well, first, for some totally unknown reason, the names were all changed. Although it clearly is about Jeckyl and Hyde, these names were inexplicably changed. Also, mostly due to too many versions, this film manages to be rather dull--something that DOESN'T happen with Christopher Lee's vampire movies. Too bad--I was really hoping this wouldn't be just "same old, same old".