I, Monster (1973)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

This is definitely the story of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde with only the names changed (Dr. Marlowe and Mr. Blake played by Christopher Lee). It's wonderful addition to the Amicus films.Dr. Marlowe experiments with the good vs evil within man and unleashes a monster that calls himself Mr. Blake. This evil side of Dr. Marlowe grows more hideous with every transformation into Mr. Blake, both physically and in personality. He goes so far as to murder. Dr. Utterson (Peter Cushing) is Dr. Marlowe's best friend and colleague but can he put an end to Blake/Marlowe's reign of terror? Great late night film with the fantastic duo: Lee and Cushing.8/10

Milton Subotsky obviously thought Robert Louis Stevenson's story had passed it's Box Office sell-by date, as he changed the principle character's name to Dr. Marlowe and his evil alter-ego to Edward Blake, and added a Freudian layer to the tale. The result is not always successful but generally watchable, and of course, will be fondly remembered for featuring the august presences of Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.It's Lee who plays the experimenting Doctor, and while the build-up to his first change is quite effective once Blake takes to the streets there doesn't seem much for him to do. Poor Mike Raven, in having to tell of Blake's ruthless stamping upon a young girl is forced to sound like he's reading from a book. We are then shown this in a dream sequence which is far more convincing.Peter Cushing is on hand to lend his probing of the Marlowe/Blake conundrum a dignified air, and Christopher Lee himself delivers a very good performance as Blake disintegrates into a fiend and wretched specimen. It's interesting that writer Subotsky plays up the pathos element largely when Blake's on screen and keeps Marlowe as a stiff upper lip type most of the way. A very young Steven Weeks directs nicely, but he was to make a far better British horror film with 1974's Ghost Story.Sadly, the film's 77 minute running time does not exactly fly over - especially during the central section which is rather bland. It has a nicely judged climax though, and remains a decent if not great entry in the colossal Jekyll and Hyde corpus. Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 version is still the best version of the tale for this reviewer.

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.