Is man born evil or is society to blame? Dr. Marlowe (Christopher Lee) believes that every man has both good and evil sides to their personality, and, influenced by Freud's theories about the id, ego and super-ego, he cooks up a serum to test the notion. After using a couple of his patients as guinea pigs, Marlowe injects himself with the drug and turns from dedicated doctor to leering loon Mr Blake, for whom crime is a source of pleasure.I, Monster is Amicus' take on the oft-filmed Robert Louis Stevenson classic Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, except in this version it's Dr Marlowe and Mr Blake. As adaptations of Stevenson's famous work go, this is certainly one of the most consistently entertaining, thanks to a fun central performance from Lee, who revels in the wickedness of Mr Blake, a solid supporting turn from Peter Cushing as Marlowe's concerned lawyer Utterson, a reasonably faithful script, and effective direction from Steven Weeks.I do, however, have an issue with the fact that none of the characters identify Blake as Marlowe, not even those who share his home. Towards the very end, as the monster within takes control and Blake becomes truly ugly, this is understandable, but during the earlier stages, where the physical changes are slight and Blake is still easily recognisable as Marlowe, it is difficult to swallow. The level of suspension of disbelief required is just a little too high for me to rate the film any higher than 6/10.

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).

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.

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.