BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Scott LeBrun "I, Monster" is a respectable adaptation of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale of Jekyll & Hyde, albeit with some unconventional touches by screenwriter Milton Subotsky. Sir Christopher Lee stars as Dr. Marlowe, a psychiatrist / researcher who experiments with drugs, trying to get his patients to release their inhibitions. But when he tests his serum on himself, the results are predictable enough. He becomes an unhinged alter ego named Edward Blake, who indulges in debauched and nasty acts for their own sake. Meanwhile, Marlowes' lawyer Utterson (Peter Cushing) believes Marlowe and Blake to be two different people and thinks that the Blake character is blackmailing Marlowe.While this slight film doesn't have quite enough style or gravitas to rate as anything more than routine entertainment, it's still reasonably well done. Produced by horror greats Amicus, its period recreation is decent, and its atmosphere likewise effective. Subotsky's touches include having Marlowe be a follower of Freud, so there are Freudian overtones, and the topic of the role that drugs play - or shouldn't play - in the treatment of patients. It does have the time honored appeal of any story with a Frankenstein type mad doctor twist. The makeup by Harry and Peter Frampton is pretty good, but the amount used on Lee is increased bit by bit on screen rather than utilized all at once. The music by Carl Davis is good. As directed by Stephen Weeks, a 22 year old budding filmmaker hired by Amicus at Lees' suggestion, it's actually not terribly violent - or as sexy as the stuff churned out by Hammer during this period. Much of the budget went towards an unusual 3D process exploiting the Pulfrich effect (which explains the camera movement), one that wasn't exactly pleasant to film for Lee.As can be expected, the consistent professionalism and commitment to character by the two stars makes it all worthwhile. They're ably supported by exemplary actors such as Mike Raven, Richard Hurndall, George Merritt, and Kenneth J. Warren. That's a young Michael Des Barres as the youth who accosts Blake in the alley.Agreeable entertainment, overall, although the ending is rather abrupt.Six out of 10.

Scarecrow-88 Amicus takes on the Jekyll & Hyde theme with Christopher Lee portraying a scientist, Dr. Marlowe, experimenting with a serum which might separate the distinct personalities of good and evil, creating an ability to fulfill our innermost desires and break down the barriers of the unconscious without feelings of guilt or conscience. Instead Marlowe creates a drug which enhances the evil side in him to the point that it overpowers the good. Marlowe is a psychiatrist whose practice derives from the teachings of Freud which heavily influence his desire to experiment. Lee gets the chance to actually play essentially two roles, the cold, mild-mannered, evenly tempered scientist and the hot-headed heel, with a voracious appetite for all things carnage. We see the evil side motivate Lee to steal a cane, engage in a knife fight with street punk, frighten a poor kid with glee in his eyes. As the scientist Lee shows that, while he does have a drawer with nude photos and believes we shouldn't be hindered by oppressing our inhibitions, he is far more civilized and even keeled that the hell spawn he has slowly unraveled upon an unprepared London. Soho will never be the same thanks to the devilish fiend lurking in their midst. Leisurely paced to say the least and dialogue heavy but a showcase for Lee to try his hand at a variation on the creation(s)of Robert Louis Stevenson. Peter Cushing is Marlowe's colleague, Frederick Utterson, concerned for his friend's association with the mysterious Dr. Edward Blake. My favorite scene could be when Utterson is discouraged by his client Marlowe's will and Lee reveals an almost admiration for Blake's abilities to commit evil without the anguishing conflicts which often accompany a life of crime..it's a scene where Lee allows us to see the pent-up disdain for "fashionable" behavior in their aristocracy. As the film continues, Marlowe is consumed by Blake, the ugliness not only in action but through physical transformation. When Blake feels threatened as Marlowe's friends fear for their colleague's safety and well being, the monster will respond by any means necessary to protect himself. To be honest I,MONSTER is mostly noteworthy as a vehicle for another Lee and Cushing collaboration, as Blake will come after Utterson who knows too much due to his snooping for a troubled client in a fight at the climax. Out of all the Jekyll & Hyde movies you can get your hands on, I, MONSTER isn't exactly at the top of the class, but I was glad to finally get my hands on a copy. I think the detriment to this film ultimately is the lack of a decent print which would provide better visual stimulation ..I don't discredit the DVD company, because to simply have a chance to see it was appreciated, but it's a shame that there aren't better elements to yield a more pleasurable viewing experience(we are as horror fans spoiled these days).

catfish-er Throughout the mid 60s and early 70s Amicus Productions churned out a series of wonderful little horror anthologies including: DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS (1965), TORTURE GARDEN (1967), THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD (1970), ASYLUM (1972), THE VAULT OF HORROR (1973, second best of the bunch), FROM BEYOND THE GRAVE (1973), and TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972, which is my all-time favorite horror anthology!) Recently, with the Amicus Collection, I've discovered some full-length movies, like ASYLUM, AND NOW THE SCREAMING STARTS; and, THE BEAST MUST DIE. While quite capable, I really enjoyed only the first two, as the third one seemed a bit out-of character for the production company.However, as other reviews note, I, MONSTER has got to be the best re-telling of Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde ever. If not the best, certainly the most faithful to the original story. I really liked the character of Dr. Marlow; and, the progression of experiments, with varying results. The scenes in the gentlemen's club provide a fitting narrative, without the need of a narrator.Amicus really defined the horror anthology genre for me. But it is good to see they had some good feature films as well. Next up: THEY CAME FROM BEYOND SPACE and THE DEADLY BEES.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.