I, Monster (1973)

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

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

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I've been on a Jekyll and Hyde adaptation kick, so I thought I'd give this one a review too. Yes, it's really low-budget but if you are a fan of the novella, it has about a 30-minute section that follows it very closely , and that, I really like.I actually bought this DVD and found out some interesting factoids. First, it was originally supposed to be a 3D movie but the budget was cut, so there are these weird moments in the movie where Christopher Lee is pointing things at the camera and it comes off as goofy.For me, the Jekyll and Hyde benchmark has become FIGHT CLUB. Ultimately that is one of the best adaptations. I like when two actors are used to portray the characters as Stevenson writes them to be two different characters (both mentally and physically). One of the funniest/goofiest/worse things about this movie though, is the transformation. Lee cowers into the shadows then rises as Hyde (called Mr. Blake here) and simply smiles really big and darts his eyes around. In the book, one of the most freeing elements for the characters is that Hyde is virtually unrecognizeable as Jekyll (who can be a passenger to his wrongdoings). In this version Lee's transformation from Jekyll (here called Marlow) to Hyde is comical. A big smile and crazy eyes apparently do the trick!The setting is taken from Victorian England and put into the early Freudian-influenced 20th century and Marlow is a psychiatrist. This is fine as the Freudian rhetoric fits well with Marlow's attempts to break free from the reserved Victorian frame of mind.Get over the budget concerns and this is a damn decent adaptation.

A thoughtful and intelligent adaptation of the classic Stephenson story, also filmed the same year as DR JEKYLL AND SISTER HYDE, which had Ralph Bates transforming into a woman of all things. I, MONSTER is brought to us by the classic pairing of Max J Rosenberg and Milton Subotsky, and yes, it is indeed an Amicus film, although surprisingly not an anthology.While the story is familiar, thanks to the above-average cast it always remains believable and in some cases, horrifying. I would say that the sole reason this film works is Christopher Lee's acting, which, although on the outside just seems to be the cold, aloof character he always plays, actually turns into something else when Lee brings real pathos to the role of the savage degenerate he has become, forced by evil to do evil things, yet the expression on his face is one of regret and suffering. By far, the best sequence in the film is when Lee is snubbed and openly mocked in public for his ugliness by a drunk prostitute and later follows her home, then beats her mercilessly to death. There are two victims in this scene, and Lee is by far the most tragic of the two.Unfortunately, the biggest flaw of the film is the lack of much action. In fact, little happens at all, apart from Lee walking around, experimenting. He doesn't even do any really horrible things, except rob and kill a couple of people. This film did get a 12 certificate here in the UK after all, so frankly I wasn't expecting much violence. Although it may be boring and familiar at times, I, MONSTER, succeeds thanks to Lee's skilled acting and also three notable supporting actors.The first is Peter Cushing, who brings us his typical refined dignity to the film as a doctor associate of Marlowe's, a man who is wholly on the side of good (just as he had been fifteen years earlier, against Lee's Dracula). Although Cushing's role is fairly small it is pivotal nonetheless, with his presence setting up the exciting finale which plays something like the end of Dracula with a titanic battle between Cushing and Lee. Okay, maybe it is a tad lower-key than Dracula's ending, but effective anyway.Mike Raven turns up in an unintentionally amusing role as a doctor who sits back and occasionally comments on the action, his voice is absolutely hilarious as it slides smoothly over the accompanying actors. Raven has been given a lot of stick through the years and it has to be said, this is not one of his better roles. Further down the cast list is one Richard Hurndall, whom sci-fi fans will note as the replacement for William Hartnell in 1984's THE FIVE DOCTORS. Hurndall doesn't get to do much, but it's good to see him in something else other than DR WHO anyway.I, MONSTER is definitely no classic film, yet it remains solid entertainment. Interestingly, it was filmed in 3D, which explains the puzzling camera angles and objects flying at the camera. Perhaps a fuller script with more plot twists and action would have made the film more exciting, or more theorising about the balance of good and evil would have made it deeper. Still, there are some interesting points made in due course, and the film has the classic Gothic-type atmosphere so beloved of Hammer, it does actually feel a lot like a Hammer film. Not brilliant, and definitely flawed, yet still an essential obscurity for the collector.

"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.

Most analyse's of Stevenson's famous story 'Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde' mention the psycho-sexual undercurrents in the story, and argue that the book is nothing more than a condemnation of those who seek to slip below the scale of Victorian(Christian)morality. While it is true that Jekyll creates his alter-ego to carry out his baser instincts, it is often overlooked that Jekyll's real goal was to let his evil self die out by releasing it so that once he was purged of all remotely evil instincts; he would become the perfect man; a god. However, as everyone knows, his experiment did the exact opposite.Using that point-of View; that makes this film from Amicus studios the most faithful adaption of DJ&MH. It attempts grandeur ie. Creating the most faithful adaption ever of the famous novel; in 3-D no less,; but ultimately destroys itself in the very area it could have succeeded. But, like Jekyll himself through of the results of his experiment; the results were indeed interesting.This film had the perfect opportunity to remain faithful to the novel. For those who have not read the book; it is actually a mystery that sets itself up as a blackmail thriller, only in the last two chapters is it revealed that Jekyll & Hyde are the same man. Now, apart from the ending of 'The Empire Strikes Back'; this is probably the most well-known ending in history. So much that nearly all versions have dropped the mystery format altogether and instead substituted a romantic subplot that drives Jekyll insane and follows him from beginning to end. 'I, Monster' had the perfect opportunity to re-institute the original novel's mystery plot: It would change the names of Jekyll & Hyde; and since the majority of the books characters are never present in film adaptations, it wouldn't make audiences suspicious! And it would also keep people from learning the ending by not titling the film with either alter-ego's name; but with a generic(but cool)title.Seems the perfect way to re-use the original plot without it becoming obvious, right? Yes, it was the perfect way. But instead; the film uses the traditional route of following Jekyll from beginning to end with no mystery. And the intent to film in 3-D was dropped.; making the film look washed out and dull with hazy characters cast in opposing red & blue filters.Such a waste. But in spite of that, this still remains the most faithful adaption of the novel and still adds some new twists. Here, Marlowe(the Jekyll figure, played by Christopher Lee)tests his serum on animals and patients. The results are amusing: A suicidal, repressed young woman becomes a nymphomaniac and beds the Doctor, a short-fused businessman becomes a whimpering sissy and in a moving scene, Marlowe's cat attacks him and he kills it hesitantly. Mention is made of Freud and that gives the film an air of authenticity. The actions of Blake(the Hyde figure, also Lee)progress from simple vandalism to murder in a believable pattern. Lee hams it up as Blake, and his makeup is minimal; but it captures the description of Hyde in the novel as being an ugly, but normal man who simply gives the feel of being repulsive and deformed even though he isn't.The film, apart from the already mentioned changes and the subplot of Marlowe/Jekyll first experimenting on patients, still follows the book quite well other than the climatic ending and elimination of the Carew murder in favor of the murder of a prostitute who mocks Blake. It even includes the infamous 'marked door', the trampling of the little girl, and even Utterson's nightmares. All the characters are here; Enfield, Lanyon, the Soho landlady. And all the actors do a great job. Lee is fantastic as Marlowe and even makes us feel some pity for Blake himself!!!! Peter Cushing is the first on screen portrayal of Utterson, and he fits the role well, particularly the character's 'radiant eyes'. The ending even leaves him in a position almost as tragic as Marlowe/Blakes.Although very low-key, the film is definitely worth a watch; Second only to the Fredric March version('Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde' and the Jack Palance film are also good). It may seem slow paced, but it accurately matches the aura of despair and spiritual decay. Cushing is always watchable, most of the supporting actors are good; and Lee gives his second-best performance after De Richleau in 'The Devil Rides Out'.It's definitely a treat to watch in light of his recent Knighthood. Three cheers for SIR Christopher Lee! I just KNOW that this film will look even better in light of that, and the upcoming Keanu Reeves film that I can just feel is going to be a travesty.~