IMDb reviews From IMDb
★ 6 / 10
**_Amicus’ version of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde”
Wuchak
**_Amicus’ version of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” with Lee and Cushing_** In 1906, a psychologist in London entertains Freudian theories while experimenting with…
**_Amicus’ version of “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” with Lee and Cushing_**
In 1906, a psychologist in London entertains Freudian theories while experimenting with drug injections, which he eventually tries on himself with damaging results.
“I, Monster” (1971) changes the two names of the protagonist/antagonist (Christopher Lee) simply to preserve the surprise of the well-known plot twist in “The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.” They did this because there had been so many versions of the story done in cinema by that point. The rival studio, Hammer, did a version eleven years earlier, “The Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll,” and were doing another variation the same year this came out, “Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde.” Producers even tried to hide the fact that it was the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde story in the opening credits when acknowledging Robert Louis Stevenson.
I can see why it’s relatively obscure seeing as how it’s nowhere near as entertaining as “Two Faces.” It takes a lowkey approach with a talky focus on the psychology of the novella and inserts Freudian theories into Stevenson's story with the events taking place two decades after the tale was published.
Also, the editing is sometimes questionable with certain things ambiguous rather than spelled out, such as the fact that Marlowe injects Diane with his experimental drug. This isn’t shown and the viewer has to connect the dots. I'm assuming the BBC frowned upon depictions of drug injections at the time.
Nevertheless, this is one of Lee’s most expressive roles and it’s worth viewing just for that. Also, the psychological theories are interesting and there are entertaining bits throughout. But the idea that Marlowe’s colleagues couldn’t recognize him as Blake is laughable. I guess you have to pretend that he looks different enough than the movie actually shows.
It runs 1 hours, 20 minutes, and was shot at Shepperton Studios, which is located just southwest of London.
GRADE: B-
Read full review
★ 4 / 10
Charles Marlowe is I, Monster. I, Monster is
John Chard
Charles Marlowe is I, Monster. I, Monster is directed by Stephen Weeks and written by Milton Subotsky. An interpretation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s The…
Charles Marlowe is I, Monster.
I, Monster is directed by Stephen Weeks and written by Milton Subotsky. An interpretation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, it stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, Mike Raven, Richard Hurndall, George Merritt, Kenneth J. Warren, Susan Jameson and Marjie Lawrence. Music is by Carl Davis and cinematography by Moray Grant.
Kept By The Power Of God!
Stevenson’s age old tale gets another make-over as Dr. Charles Marlowe (Lee) invents a drug that releases his patients’ inhibitions. However, upon trying the drug himself, Marlowe finds that he turns into the monstrous Mr. Blake, who with each transformation becomes more cruel and debauched.
Dull and Hyde!
Amicus never quite made the mark on British Horror that they aspired to, a few films are enjoyable, certainly there’s good value to be found with some of the segments in their portmanteau releases, but so many others just come off as weak attempts to create a niche in the market. Quite often there was good intentions on the writing table, such is the case with I, Monster, which has literary intentions that are honourable. The Eastman Color photography is lovely, the period design equally so, and the use of canted angles is a good move, but unfortunately the film is just too dull and beset with problems elsewhere.
First off is Cushing and Lee, two bona fide legends of British cinema and bastions of horror. Lee is miscast, never quite convincing in the Mr. Blake role, which isn’t helped by the make up work which would look more at home in Carry On Screaming. With Cushing it’s just a case of him being underused, which is unforgivable in a horror film aiming for literary smarts. Carl Davis’ musical score is awful, at times I sounds like something that belongs in a silent movie farce.
Starting out as a 3-D venture, that idea was abandoned early in the production, it’s hard to believe that the gimmick would have stopped this being the dreary film that it is. 4/10
Read full review
★ 6 / 10
If you love Lee & Cushing, give it a look.
Hey_Sweden
"I, Monster" is a respectable adaptation of the classic Robert Louis Stevenson tale of Jekyll & Hyde, albeit with some unconventional touches by screenwriter…
"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.
Read full review
More reviews on IMDb ↗
♡ Thanks for supporting YTS Supporter badges recognize people who help keep YTS running.
40%
AUDIENCE
· 1K ratings
5.7/10
2.3K
